CC Packet 2006 03 13TENTATIVE AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY,
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. Interview Applicants for Commission Vacancies:
6:00 p.m. - Pat McGough, Senior Commission
6:15 p.m. - Kevin Dillon, Park & Recreation Commission
6:30 p.m. – Jeff Daniel, Park & Recreation Commission
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 27, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated February 27, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated February 27, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated February 21, 2006.
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 21, 2006.
b. 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize
Advertisement of Bids.
c. Item Deleted**
d. Liberty on Bluff Creek, Located East of Audubon Road, South of Lyman
Boulevard and North of Pioneer Trail
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract.
e. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp.
f. Accept Quote for 2006 Boulevard Tree Planting Program.
g. Approve Certificate of Compliance for Market Square 2nd Addition
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. MUSA Expansion, Bid Package #2 Project 06-05: Public Hearing; Order Preparation of
Plans & Specifications
3. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program NPDES Phase II, MS4 Permit.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. DAVE & MARY JO BANGASSER, 3633 South Cedar Drive: Request for a 22.5-foot
Front Yard Setback Variance, a 15.8-foot Front Yard Setback Variance (Double Frontage
Lot) and a 2.39% Hard Surface Coverage Variance to Demolish an Existing One-Stall
Garage and Construct a Modified Three-Stall Garage on a Nonconforming Corner Lot of
Record.
NEW BUSINESS
5. ROSSAVIK ADDITION, 8800 Powers Boulevard, Applicant Arild Rossavik: Request
for a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density;
Request for Rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks from Agricultural Estate District
(A2) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks
into 5 Lots with Variances.
6. HALLA GREENS (aka Chanhassen Short Course), Located on the Southeast Corner of
Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail, Applicant: John Kosmas: Request for Site Plan
Amendment and Variances for the Construction of a Golf Course.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
The following item was published and then deleted from this agenda:
1c. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-02: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize
Advertising for Bids.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman
Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, and Paul Oehme
TH 212/312 UPDATE.
Todd Gerhardt informed the council that city and MnDot staff will be providing periodic updates
on the progress of the 212/312 project. MnDot Representatives included Scott Risley, Charlene
Zimmer and Charles Cadenhead. Scott Risley gave a power presentation including the schedule
for this year’s summer construction and a tentative schedule for the next two years. In talking
about the muck removal in the 101 area, Councilman Peterson stated he was curious to know
where the muck removal had gone. In discussing the Lake Susan Drive closure, Mayor Furlong
asked if it would be possible to open that intersection sooner than September. Scott Risley
provided contact information for the public such as their website, mndot.gov, telephone numbers
and a schedule of upcoming neighborhood meetings. He informed the council that there had
been complaints in the area of Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail where trees had been
removed due to utility construction, and that the neighbor had contacted 3 news stations
regarding the story. Todd Gerhardt asked if there was an opportunity to replant the trees near the
utilities. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the timeframe for when the Pioneer Trail and
Audubon intersection closures will occur. Councilman Peterson asked about the closure of the
Powers Boulevard intersection in relation to the closure of the Lyman Boulevard intersection.
Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification on what work will be completed by Fall of 2007 and how
people will be rerouted when Highway 101 is closed for one week. Paul Oehme showed details
of the location for the new fire station and details on the Powers Boulevard and Highway 101
bridge structures. Councilman Peterson noted there was confusion over the dollar amount
MnDot has stated they will pick up on the bridges and asked for clarification on the design for
lighting and railings. Mr. Oehme explained the details for the Lyman Bridge, noting that no light
standards are planned for that bridge. He reviewed pricing and design, estimated costs for the
fire station improvement and changes in the 212/312 project. Mayor Furlong asked if there was
general agreement with MnDot regarding the fire station property, and directed staff to move
forward in the negotiation process and discussions for acquisition.
DISCUSSION OF MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TAX CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
Todd Gerhardt reviewed the research that was done by Justin Miller and outlined the proposed
resolution of support that will be before the City Council at their next meeting for approval.
City Council Work Session – February 27, 2006
2
Councilman Lundquist stated he did not believe the City of Chanhassen wanted to be the “lone
cowboy” out there, and that the City Council should go along with the recommendations from
the Metropolitan Municipalities. Councilwoman Tjornhom noted there was room for
improvement but it was a good start. Mayor Furlong agreed that it was a good start, and that
there is room for improvement but that this proposal is the right place to start. He asked that the
item be placed on tonight’s agenda for approval, rather than waiting another 2 weeks.
TH 212/312 UPDATE.
Paul Oehme gave a power point presentation reviewing the three phases of final design and
construction for the 2005 MUSA improvements. Those being 312/212 improvements, 2005
MUSA Bid Package #1 and 2005 MUSA Bid Package #2/Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements.
He reviewed the estimated cost updates and financing plan updates, which is consistent with the
feasibility study. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of the financing plan update and
about dual access in the area which was discussed in the AUAR. Todd Gerhardt explained how
this area will develop over a 3 to 5 year period. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on final
design versus preliminary design. Councilman Lundquist requested that the neighbors living in
Chaska be kept informed. Kate Aanenson noted staff will provide education at the public
hearing which will be held at the Planning Commission. Todd Gerhardt updated the council on
his discussions with Ehlers and Associates regarding bonding options. The council discussed
pros and cons and locations of the round abouts.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:50 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman
Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme and Kate
Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet D. Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jon Agrimson 12397 Jack Pine Trail
Kari Nettesheim 9151 Great Plains Boulevard
Jerry McDonald Planning Commission
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong noted that the Halla Greens item had been
pulled from the agenda and added item 1(m) under the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 13, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 13, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes
b. Resolution #2006-14: 2005 MUSA Expansion, Bid Package #2, Project 06-05: Receive
Feasibility Study, Call for Public Hearing.
c. Resolution #2006-15: TH 101 Corridor Scoping and Environmental Screening from
Lyman Boulevard South to Scott County Line, PW067F4: Approval of Consultant
Contract.
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
2
e. Resolution #2006-16: Lift Station No. 27, PW055AA: Approve Quotes for Upgrade
Improvements.
f. Minnetonka Middle School West: Approval of Request for an Interim Use Permit to Allow
Over 1,000 Cubic Yards of Grading, 6421 Hazeltine Boulevard, (Highway 41).
g. Approval of Appointments to Slow-No Wake Task Force for Lake Susan.
h. Approval of Agreement with Plowshares for Regional Storm Water Ponding.
i. Public Surplus Auction Web Services: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the City
of St. Paul.
j. Sand Companies: Approval of Loan Agreement for Local Housing Incentive Account
Grant Award.
k. Surface Water Management Plan Update: Approval of Contract Change Order.
l. Approval of Ordinance Renaming Hemlock Lane.
m. Resolution #2006-17: Resolution of Support for Dedication of 100% of Motor Vehicle
Sales Tax (MVST) to Transportation and Transit Purposes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE
GRANT; JULIUS SMITH, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.
Jules Smith, the City’s representative to the Metropolitan Council presented the City with a
check in the amount of $300,000 to help facilitate development of a 3 story, 48 unit building to
provide for lower cost housing in the community.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to accept the donation from
Metropolitan Council for the Local Housing Incentive Grant. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sergeant Jim Olson explained
how the sheriff’s office monthly reports have changed and then provided the sheriff’s office area
report, citation list, crime alerts and Community Service Officer’s reports for the month of
January. He reminded people that with the warmer weather, they need to drive slower in the
neighborhoods because of increased pedestrian traffic, and alerted people to a scam involving
rental property and e-mails from people from overseas. He commended two deputies, Keith
Walgrave and Ryan Steele in their assistance with a house fire. Assistant Chiefs Walsh and
Wahl presented the January update from the fire department, noting numerous practice burns and
actual structural fires and mutual aid fires that the department has been on in the last month.
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
3
PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, LOCATED AT PINEHURST & GALPIN BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT, LENNAR CORPORATION (LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION),
PLANNING CASE 06-03:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS
LOCATED AT PINEHURST DRIVE AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
B. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 28
ACRES WITH VARIANCES.
C. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PINEHURST DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on
impervious surface calculations. He then opened the public hearing on the vacation of drainage
and utility easements. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following:
a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst,
Vacation #06-07.
b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2nd Addition, Planning Case 06-07.
c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. 05-03.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
DAVE BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A HARD
SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO
CONSTRUCT A 3 STALL GARAGE.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification on the combination of the two lots into one parcel and decreasing
the size of the gravel driveway. Dave Bangasser provided historical information on the creation
of the Red Cedar Point neighborhood and showed photographs and surveys of comparisons to
other variances that have been granted. Councilman Peterson noted this was not an issue of 3
stall versus 2 stall garage. Councilwoman Tjornhom clarified what the Planning Commission
struggled with regarding the direction of runoff from the site and 2 stall versus 3 stall garage.
After council discussion the following motion was made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the request for
hard surface coverage and two front yard setback variances to construct a 3 stall garage at
3633 South Cedar Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE, NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY 101 AND FUTURE HIGHWAY 212, APPLICANT, CHANHASSEN
GATEWAY PLACE, LLC: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.2 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS AND
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
4
1 OUTLOT AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilman Peterson asked staff to provide a perspective of other uses in the area.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about waiting until the completion of the retail market study.
Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the parking requirements. The applicant, Jamie
Thelen with Gateway Place stated they were in agreement with the staff recommendations, with
one request about the sidewalk connection. If there is no site plan in review by the time they are
ready to get a Certificate of Occupancy, they will put the sidewalk connection in at that point.
Mayor Furlong asked the applicant to explain if the shape of the building would affect parking
requirements. After council discussion the following motions were made.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-05 for Gateway North as shown on plans
received January 6, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer design calculations with full-size drainage map for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event.
2. Work with staff to revise the pond design calculations for the 10- and 100-year storm event.
3. Realign Lot 1, Block 2 full access perpendicular at Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive
intersection.
4. The applicant is required to coordinate with MnDOT on the full access at Lake Susan Drive
and the storm pond outlet control sewer construction.
5. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with all regularity agency permits:
Watershed District, MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Health Department, etc.
6. On the grading plan:
a. Show an emergency over flow.
b. Show stormwater pond easement.
c. Show silt fence Type II around the proposed pond.
d. Extend Type I silt fence to the north along the west side.
e. Show minimum 75-feet construction rock entrance.
f. Add a bench mark.
7. On the utility plan:
a. Show the watermain within the street Right-of-Way as a public utility.
b. Revise the existing sanitary sewer flow direction.
c. Add a note that any connection to any existing structure must be core drilled.
d. Show all utility sewer pipe type, class, and size.
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
5
e. Show all utility manholes rim and invert elevations.
f. Add a gate valve to Lot 1, Block 1.
8. Plan and profile views are required for the entire public utility.
9. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City
with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow and enter into a
development contract.
10. On the plans, show the pedestrian ramps and a sidewalk connection between the south and
north sides of proposed Lake Susan Drive and add a sidewalk along the north portion of Lot
1, Block 2.
11. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading.
12. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval.
13. If fill is coming from and/or going to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit
will be required for the other property.
14. All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched
within two weeks of site grading.
15. Add City Detail Plates Nos. 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202,
3101, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, and 5301.
16. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls and driveway widths.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves of site plan with a variance for the reduction of nine enclosed parking spaces for
Planning Case 06-05 for Chanhassen Gateway Place as shown on the plans received January 6,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall replace the Colorado blue spruce specified on the landscape plan with an
alternate evergreen species.
2. One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake Susan
Drive. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
five feet in height. These signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property
line.
3. Additional information must be submitted pertaining to the height and materials used for the
privacy fence located east of the tot-lot and picnic area.
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
6
4. Details on the storm sewer connection to proposed Lake Susan Drive and proposed TH 212
should be provided. An emergency overflow for the proposed pond should be illustrated.
The applicant should submit a routing plan for any pond overflows from the site to a public
water body.
5. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all storm
water infrastructure, including any emergency overflow structures. The storm water pond
should be platted in an outlot.
6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open
Steeper than 3:1 7 days when the area is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
7. Rock construction entrance shall be installed as illustrated on Chanhassen Detail Plate 5301.
8. Wimco or similar inlet protection shall be installed at all inlets that may receive storm water
from site per Chanhassen Detail Plate 5302A. All inlet protection shall be inspected and
maintained to comply with NPDES requirements.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
10. Temporary stabilization of the exposed area shall include a straw or hay cover at a rate of 2
tons per acre, disc anchored into the soil, including the area around the apartment building.
11. To minimize tracking and erosion around the apartment building during construction,
temporary cover of straw or wood chips shall be placed around the building in amounts
sufficient to control rutting.
12. The plans shall be revised to show a concrete washout area, BMPs for containment and
potential stockpile locations.
13. Silt fence (Chanhassen Type 1) shall be installed around the north and east side of the pond
within 24 hours of permanent outlet installation.
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
7
14. The plans shall be revised to show inlet protection for sediment during construction for the
trench drain at the garage and shall include a detail.
15. Submit a detailed lighting and signage plan consistent with the Chanhassen Gateway PUD
Development Design Standards.
16. Building Official conditions:
a. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
b. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c. An accessible route must be provided to the building, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d. All parking areas, including parking garage, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces.
e. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building
Code Chapter 1341.
f. The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
17. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Yellow curbing and “no parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact locations of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
c. Builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division
policies. Copies enclosed.
c.1 1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems.
c.2 4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans.
c.3 7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings.
c.4 29-1992 regarding premise identification.
c.5 34-1993 regarding water service installation.
c.6 36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing.
c.7 40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.
c.8 06-1991 regarding fire lane signage.
c.9. 52-2005 regarding commercial plan review submittal criteria.
d. Show on utility plan location of post indicator valve (PIV).
e. The hydrant on the south end of the loop shall be moved approximately 30 feet northeast.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and approval.
f. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
City Council Summary – February 27, 2006
8
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2000 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4
g. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
18. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of the final plat for Gateway North.
19. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement.
20. The building shall comply with the Planned Unit Development building setback
requirements.”
21. The applicant shall revise the plans to show a clock on the vertical element of the building.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong informed the council that a meeting has been
arranged with Councilman Lundquist, Mayor Furlong and Todd Gerhardt to meet with
Representative Hoppe on Thursday to discuss legislative initiatives and priorities. They are
working with Senator Ortman to meet with her as well.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt passed out a handout outlining the
legislative initiatives and priorities that will be discussed with Representative Hoppe and Senator
Ortman and informed the council that the City will be hosting the School District 112 Leaders
meeting in the Senior Center on Friday.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:25
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman
Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme and Kate
Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet D. Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jon Agrimson 12397 Jack Pine Trail
Kari Nettesheim 9151 Great Plains Boulevard
Jerry McDonald Planning Commission
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everyone here with us in the council chambers,
as well as those watching at home. We’re glad you joined us. At this time I’d like to make an
announcement regarding our agenda as well as add an item to it, then open it up to the council to
add additional items or modify it. First of all, just for point of clarification, if there are people
here this evening for the Halla Greens matter, that has been pulled off tonight. We will not be
discussing that this evening. We expect that to return at our next meeting, our first meeting in
March. So if there are people here for that, we will not be discussing that this evening. Also
based upon our work session, the item under work session C, which is the discussion related to
the motor vehicles sales tax constitutional amendment. We will be adding that as item 1(m) this
evening on our consent agenda. So at this point I would ask if there’s any other modifications or
changes related to the agenda. If not, with that addition we will proceed. At this point I would
like to consider the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 13, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 13, 2006
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
2
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes
b. Resolution #2006-14: 2005 MUSA Expansion, Bid Package #2, Project 06-05: Receive
Feasibility Study, Call for Public Hearing.
c. Resolution #2006-15: TH 101 Corridor Scoping and Environmental Screening from
Lyman Boulevard South to Scott County Line, PW067F4: Approval of Consultant
Contract.
e. Resolution #2006-16: Lift Station No. 27, PW055AA: Approve Quotes for Upgrade
Improvements.
f. Minnetonka Middle School West: Approval of Request for an Interim Use Permit to Allow
Over 1,000 Cubic Yards of Grading, 6421 Hazeltine Boulevard, (Highway 41).
g. Approval of Appointments to Slow-No Wake Task Force for Lake Susan.
h. Approval of Agreement with Plowshares for Regional Storm Water Ponding.
i. Public Surplus Auction Web Services: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the City
of St. Paul.
j. Sand Companies: Approval of Loan Agreement for Local Housing Incentive Account
Grant Award.
k. Surface Water Management Plan Update: Approval of Contract Change Order.
l. Approval of Ordinance Renaming Hemlock Lane.
m. Resolution #2006-17: Resolution of Support for Dedication of 100% of Motor Vehicle
Sales Tax (MVST) to Transportation and Transit Purposes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
PRESENTATION OF LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE GRANT; JULIUS SMITH,
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.
Mayor Furlong: This evening I would like to welcome our representative to Metropolitan
Council, Jules Smith who’s here this evening and would like to make a presentation to the
council.
Jules Smith: Mr. Mayor and council members, it’s my pleasure tonight to advance to the City of
Chanhassen the $300,000 to help facilitate development of a 3 story, 48 unit building to provide
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
3
for lower cost housing in the community. Very pleased to do that. I realize that this money is
primarily, this is part of the Livable Communities Act of the Metropolitan Council and this
project was selected upon many, many that were offered. I realize that this actually is a pass
through but it’s, it does help the City achieve some of their modest cost housing units, so I’m
very pleased to present this to the City. Good to see you.
Todd Gerhardt: You too. I’ll come down any time.
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t we step up here if we can.
Jules Smith: I’d just like to take one second and introduce the sector representative of Met
Council for Carver County, Jim Hutley who’s out here tonight and knows Kate. Well I’m not
sure…You didn’t chop off my head did you?
Mayor Furlong: One of the items, just to be clear, with regard I think in the staff’s
recommendation, I think at this point I would entertain a motion officially on behalf of the City
to officially accept the grant. Is there such a motion?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to accept the donation from
Metropolitan Council for Local Housing Incentive Grant. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate the work that everybody did so that that grant could
occur and we could increase some affordable units here in our city. We are still within visitor
presentations of our agenda so at this point I would welcome any resident or guest at this point
that would like to come forward and address the council on a matter to please do so. Come to
the podium. State your name and address. Okay. Very good. Seeing none, we’ll move on now
to the next items on our agenda.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. Before you for this month I have the sheriff’s
office area report for the month of January. I have the citation list for the month of January.
Crime alerts that were issued by Chanhassen Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth and also
Community Service Officer reports. As you probably noticed the format of our monthly reports
have changed. There were some discrepancies however in comparisons to last year and they
pulled that out of this report. I hope they have that back in for the next report that we present
you with. What you see on the first page is number of crimes. What we’ve had in the past is
calls for service, and I think it’s very important for the City Council to have a handle on the
number of crimes that are occurring in the city as well as the calls for service that are code. The
difference between those two, we might get a call, a call for service to a burglary that’s occurring
at a residence and once we get to that, and we respond to that like it’s a burglary. Once we get
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
4
there we realize it’s actually not a burglary. Maybe it’s a son that’s coming home late at night.
The neighbor calls it in and doesn’t realize that it’s the son calling it in. That comes across as a
call for service. However, that’s not an actual crime that occurred. I think it’s important again
for the City Council to have both of those numbers as far as number of crimes and the calls for
service, so what is before you on the first page of the report are the actual crimes. And those are
the part one crimes and part two crimes that occur, and these are the numbers that we send in to
the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that gets logged into the uniform crime reports that the
BCA puts out. The second page is more the non-criminal calls that come in, and sometimes
what used to be on the criminal calls for service are now going onto this page, so that is the
difference that we’re doing. Any questions at all in the change in the format? Again next month
I hope to have the comparisons to last year that will be on there. I apologize that it’s not on
there. The one that I did want to point out was the burglaries. They’re a little bit high for the
month of January. There was some stores and strip malls that were broken into in the middle of
the month and I talked about that actually in the January council meeting, and we have not had
any break-in’s to strip malls or stores in strip malls since then. Crime Prevention Officer Beth
Hoiseth did put out a crime alert at that time that went out to the businesses with information on
how to minimize their chances of being broken into, and also how to minimize their loss if they
do get broken into. So there was a crime alert and that is included in your packet. That was put
out. The theft and the property damage were both pretty comparable to what we had last year
and there weren’t anything else. There wasn’t anything else that really stood out to me
compared to last year in that. I also wanted to point out that warmer is coming and with the
warmer weather sometimes speeds kind of increase with people, and I would encourage parents
to talk to the new drivers about driving through neighborhoods. The deputies will be in the
neighborhoods monitoring traffic. It’s important for people to slow down going through
neighborhoods. We’re going to have a lot more people that will be on the streets and kids
walking home from school sometimes instead of taking the buses so a lot more traffic on the
streets, so just keep that in mind when you’re driving through these neighborhoods. I also, I read
a report today that I think residents need to hear about and need to know. And the report did not
come from the City of Chanhassen but it did come from the metro area. A woman in the metro
was renting a house, or she was renting a house out I should say. She had an ad in the paper
about renting her house out, and somebody from out of the country exchanged e-mails with her
about interest in renting this house out and they ended up sending her a money order to rent the
house and said that they’d be in I think a couple of months to come in to move into the house,
and it was a rather substantial amount of money that the money order was for. A couple days
later the renter contacted the homeowner and said that he had had a tragedy in his family and
needed the money back in order to pay for funeral expenses. The homeowner checked with her
bank and they said the money order was good, so she had a money order made out and sent it
overseas to the perspective renter. She found out a few days later however that the money order
was not good, and she was out the substantial amount of money. I have seen some reports of this
coming through, not only just metro area but also nationwide with some money order scams
going on with some countries overseas. People need to be very cautious with that as far as if
somebody gives them a money order and wants money back from that, I would not do that for a
while anyway, until you’re sure that that money order has cleared. We’re also continuing to see
a large number of thefts by, you know check forgery, credit card thefts, identity thefts, so on and
so forth. I would encourage residents to buy a paper shredder and any paperwork that has any
kind of account numbers on it, you know whether it be from credit cards. Whether it be from,
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
5
you know it’s got your check routing number and account number on it, anything that’s got
account numbers on it, to shred that. This time of year is also tax time, and sometimes people
will do a few different tax forms and make a mistake and go on and they throw those in the
garbage and start over again. Remember that those tax forms have your social security number
on it and some other information that you probably do not want anybody to get a hold of, so
make sure you shred those. There are people that are actually going through garbage looking for
account numbers. And garbage is, they can do that. There isn’t anything illegal about that so
make sure you shred your account numbers. I also wanted to compliment two of our deputies.
Keith Walgrave and Ryan Steele. Last Friday we had a fire that occurred in the city of
Chanhassen that was a rather large fire. Keith and Ryan went running into a burning house
where a frantic homeowner was trying to rescue some property. They went above and beyond
the call the duty to help this homeowner. They actually went in not only once but twice run in to
this burning house to help this gentleman, and we have, both Ryan and Keith have been
nominated for an award for their, for what they did with that and they did a wonderful job so.
Any questions for the sheriff’s office at all?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, questions for the Sergeant? At this time. No? Very good, thank
you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a nice evening.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate the report. With us this evening from the fire department I see we
have two assistant chiefs here. Assistant Chief Wahl and Walsh, good evening.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Our fearless leader is out of town so we’re here to represent Chief Geske
tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you.
Assistant Chief Walsh: It’s been a very busy month for the fire department. I know that Greg
submitted his monthly update. He put in there, as of the date of the update there were no
structure fires, and I’d like to take that back. Wednesday, February 8th was a mutual aid call to
Excelsior fire department for a new construction home that was a total loss, approximately 4
hour, 5 hour call for our members. We had a piece of property located on Audubon Road that
we were able to do a very good training with, and we burned in those two Saturdays as well as
one Monday night, and so to give you a little chronological event here. Saturday, February 11 th
in the morning we spent about 6 hours training in one of the homes and then ended up burning
that down. We were home by about 1:00 in the afternoon after clean-up, and that evening, about
8:00 Excelsior had another structure fire which was at Highway 7 and 41, behind Cub Foods.
Fully involved structure fire that turned out to be a 9 hour call for our members. Monday then,
the 13th, two days later we conducted another hot live training down at the Audubon site, and
then that following Wednesday evening, the 15th we helped Eden Prairie with a structure fire. It
was approximately a 5 hour call. And then on Saturday the 18th we conducted our last practice
burn down at the Audubon site, and burned that last home down. That was also the coldest
weekend of the year. We all had several layers on, and we also responded to 4 water alarms.
One of them being at the AmericInn that sustained extensive damage to their lobby area, and
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
6
another in an insurance company located off of Century Boulevard that also had extensive
damage. The other two were residential. And then Jim took our thunder but we had our own
structure fire then on Thursday, the 23rd of February and that was located on Lotus Trail. It was
about 1:00. I was working but Randy responded to that. As far as our membership, we have lost
a total of 3 members over the last 4 weeks. One of them less than 5 years of membership and
one with 6 years. And then we have also lost one probationary member. And then one note to
the changes in our officer structure. We have, are beginning to transition Greg Hayes into our
training position and Ed Coppersmith will be transitioning out of that as part of his
responsibilities. Any questions for the fire department?
Mayor Furlong: Are you done with your practice burns?
Assistant Chief Walsh: We are.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So things should calm down a little bit.
Assistant Chief Walsh: I hope so, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Not to make light of that but obviously there’s been a lot of time spent and we
appreciate everybody’s effort. I know that’s, it’s dedication on the fire fighter’s part but it’s also
an interruption to family time and work time as well so we appreciate that.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And I, from every report I heard, the structure fire last Thursday was a major
one that everybody responded well and professionally and did the best they could so we thank
you for that. Anything more on that that you want to share with us tonight?
Randy Wahl: No, actually everything went pretty well. I want to also thank the sheriff’s office
for getting everything prepped and ready to go for us by the time we had come up in there.
Pretty much everything went like clock work other than the fact that we were working on some
narrow streets and it gets a little tight in those areas so can’t always do what you want to do so,
but everything worked out pretty good over there.
Mayor Furlong: Good, but we never want to hear those events occurring but we’re glad you’re
there to deal with them when they do, so thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Sherry or Randy, could you tell, what was our response time to the Lotus Lake
fire and how long were we at the scene? Do you know those numbers?
Randy Wahl: Response time, not exactly sure on that other than Dale, I would have to say, the
Battalion Chief was initially on the scene within 4 minutes. First in engine probably comes in
around 6 to 7 minutes after that. Once we had established a right-of-way into the area,
everything went pretty good there. As far as on scene, we were probably 1:00 til 8:00 by the
time we had actually left there. There was some extensive overhaul in making sure that we had
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
7
no rekindle and going through and making sure everything was okay. I think the initial knock
down probably a couple hours.
Todd Gerhardt: I know that the insurance company was out there today and recommended that
the house be taken down to it’s original foundation. That it not be reconstructed or rafters
replaced. That it come down to the original foundation and rebuilt from there. That’s the intent
of the homeowner.
Randy Wahl: Yeah, there was also some accolades I guess from the insurance company in that
the fire ground preservation was well intact so they were able to make cause determination from
that.
Todd Gerhardt: And cause again was wood burning stove is what I was told.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other questions for the fire department? Thank you for
everything.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you.
PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, LOCATED AT PINEHURST & GALPIN BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION (LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION),
PLANNING CASE 06-03:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS
LOCATED AT PINEHURST DRIVE AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
B. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 28
ACRES WITH VARIANCES.
C. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PINEHURST DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, as I was going to state, there is 3 action items for you
tonight. The one action item requires the public hearing. Otherwise this item would actually be
on consent. This project was actually recently approved a little over a year ago. The Pinehurst
development. It included 2 lots. As you know when subdivisions come in we request that they
demonstrate the home size. At that time it looked like the homes, the biggest one would be 72
feet in width, at our 10 foot side yard requirements use little bit bigger lots because our normal is
90. The home site actually went up and with that the staff was reluctant to grant variances, so it
resulted in a replat. Not all the lots got replatted but if you can just follow me I’ll point to one lot
was lost up in the northern area, and then one lot was also lost, there was 2 lots that were
removed from the project. So it went from what was originally approved at 43 down to 41 lots.
With that, utility lines have to follow property lines so that’s the public hearing tonight is to
vacate the old utility lines and to have those put in their place. So with that, unless there’s
specific questions, it’s all the grading, utility work, that stuff is pretty much, there is some clean-
up with the site, with the plat except for the 2 lots being removed. It’s pretty similar looking to
what was originally approved. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise I
would just have you follow as on your agenda, the 3 items for a motion.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
8
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Do you want questions on any of the 3 items at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any questions for staff? The one I have is with regard to
impervious surface coverage, as we’re looking at.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, actually we did ask the applicant to look at that because that was one of
our issues. We did, they submitted for us a summary. We do have one model that’s up on the
project already, on the site and so if you look at their standard home size, which is about 74 by
45, add in a 900 square feet for the driveway, we’re just around 4,000. So we should be well
within that impervious for that homeowner an opportunity to put decks or some other features
that they want. So the impervious surface would be, meet the requirement of the 25% so there is
room within that.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s the question, that they’re not maxing it out with the actual
construction?
Kate Aanenson: No, and we looked at that too, which is one of the reasons why we didn’t want
to go to a variance because we just felt like that the homeowner is being…that they can’t make
changes too, and we find that comes back to the City as a rub and that was the developer. So
yes, there is enough room for them at a future date to do additions or make modifications.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and work out across the entire subdivision?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. What I gave you for those dimensions would actually be at the 4,000
and 500’s actually some of the smaller lots so, it should work alright.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not,
the public hearing as I understand it relates to the issue of vacating utility easements that were
with the original plat and since some of the lot lines have been redrawn, they need to be vacated
that were there and then new ones would be established…
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was when you approved the new plat, those are, with the new
plat which would be item (c).
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So at this point I would open the public hearing with regard
to the discussion and invite interested parties to come forward and discuss, represent their
opinions with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. Seeing nobody, we’ll
close that public hearing and move on. Is there any discussion on any of the other items, (b) or
(c) here as well? Any discussion on the first item? If not, is there any reason that we can’t deal
with all 3 of these in a single motion?
Kate Aanenson: Right, you can make one motion.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
9
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can make one motion based upon staff’s recommendation in the
reports. Do I hear such a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I would make that motion that the City Council approve all
the recommendations supported by staff this evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following:
a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst,
Vacation #06-07.
b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2nd Addition, Planning Case 06-07.
c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. 05-03.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
DAVE BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A HARD
SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO
CONSTRUCT A 3 STALL GARAGE.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located out at Red Cedar Point. It is actually
two lots. This is where the actual variance is on, where the existing garage is and I’ll show you
that in a second. There is existing home on the site and existing single car garage on the north
property. The applicant is requesting to receive a variance to add a 3 car garage. The variance
involves a front and rear yard setback for the garage, as well as the impervious surface, hard
cover. Can you zoom in on that just a little bit Nann? Thank you. So the existing lot with the
house on it, I’ve got the hard surface shown in yellow on this. The gravel driveway in the front,
which provides access to the existing dwelling and the garage. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this on February 7th and recommended, or voted for a 3-3 tie, which is why it’s
before you tonight. It didn’t have a super majority vote. One of the things that the Planning
Commission did ask for was some of the surrounding impervious surface coverage in the area,
and that was at 29%. This would be at 31%. In looking at the 3 car garage, staff looked at the
existing situation regarding the driveway. Could some more hard surface coverage be removed?
We also recommended that the lot be combined. I know there was that question regarding
whether or not you could combine two lots when the street goes through. You can under the
City’s code. Under lot, definition of zoning lot you can combine lots and we have no
requirements of how that would happen. We have other circumstances in the city of why we
would do that. Have it under one ownership so you can sell them off and try to allow somebody,
if this was in a separate, it’s a lot of record and there is some legal standing for someone should
ever get a permit on there. So one of the conditions that you can apply when someone asks for
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
10
variances, things to mitigate that impact and certainly having them under one ownership would
be more of the idea would be one thing that we feel would be better than someone else trying to
come in and maximizing that lot. So in discussing and looking at this itself and looking at some
of the surrounding properties, there is a wide range of lot sizes. If you were to go back, and I
know the applicant’s concerned. This is a narrower lot with the existing home. There’s a wide
range of some homes have garages on the lot. Some have homes, garages across the street, so
some have 3. Some have 4. And again in this circumstance, going back to what we have for,
there is parking convenient. While it’s not covered, to the property in itself, and looking at the
hard surface coverage, as outlined in your staff report at the tying the two together. The 31%,
they felt that that’s exceeding, or it’s on the higher end so we recommended against the second
stall, or the third stall and just recommended the two. And the Planning Commission struggled
with that too, so with that we did put the findings in there. There are, there is a motion for the
alternative in your staff report. If you were to approve it. But we believe again that’s reasonable
use with the 2 car garage. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, a question for you. The issue of combining
the two lots is something that I think you said we’ve done before and in fact I think in this
particular area that occurs too where there are individual parcels that public roads cross.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. It is defined in the code. You could have, and we have in the
city 3 or 4 different lots under separate, that are under one ownership, so it’s the lots that are
under one ownership combining them. And the purpose of that is if someone doesn’t, if it’s a lot
of record, it has certain legal rights to it and if someone wants to sell it, they may try to come in
and try to maximize the building and the circumstance. Building…accessory structure. As it sits
today it’s an accessory structure on a separate lot which would be in violation of the city code, so
again doing as many things as we can to bring it into compliance as part of that mitigation for the
variance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that’s what, condition number 10 does by making it in the same
parcel…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: …parcel identification number, then it becomes a single lot of record.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And to say that it helps impervious may or may not. Someone might
try to put even more on there. Do a single car garage and put a loft above it and then try to make
it a dwelling unit. It may end up being something else.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So again if you look at number 11, it’s the affidavit of the lot combination and
that’s, it’s a combination lot. It’s a zoning lot is different than just a regular lot is defined.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that, would then that create a single parcel?
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
11
Kate Aanenson: Yes, that’s the right word. Parcel is the right word as opposed to lot. If you
look at other definitions of.
Mayor Furlong: It would be called a single parcel.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so if there is any desire to do, to separate them, then they would have to
come through the subdivision process.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s the hook that you want.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then you mentioned something this evening that I didn’t see in the
Planning Commission minutes. Maybe it was in there and I missed it, with regard to their drive
gravel…
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that was a discussion in fairness to Mr. Bangasser that really
wasn’t talked about at the Planning Commission and that’s the fact that there is a lot of hard
surface, so if there’s a way to try to get a 3 car garage, if the council felt strongly about that, what
could you do to improve the amount of hard surface and that would be to remove some of the
driveway. I know it provides access to the house for parking, to getting things in and out, but we
saw that as an opportunity to again mitigate the amount of hard surface. I don’t believe Mr.
Bangasser would like to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess in looking at that, right now if they went with the.
Kate Aanenson: Actually if you took the driveway out, which…of the front and I know this is
shared portion over here. It will actually get you right about to 25% so it meets code.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it looks like there’s a way to do it.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, it’s whether or not that that’s acceptable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Peterson: Just one last one Kate. Just so I understand, if we do this as one parcel,
then we don’t have to go after some kind of easement for the road?
Kate Aanenson: No. We have this circumstance if you go up and down Minnewashta Parkway,
we have lots on the other side of Minnewashta Parkway. We have other lots in actually the
Carver Beach area that also have structures so, no. It is allowed. A zoning lot is allowed by city
code.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
12
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there’s no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here
this evening? Like to address the council. Good evening sir.
Dave Bangasser: Hello. I’m Dave Bangasser and this is my wife Mary Jo. Our lakeshore
property’s been in Mary Jo’s family for 60 years and as you may be aware, the property was
originally platted in 1913, nearly a century ago and as a result of that nearly all of the properties
in this area either have variances or some kind of non-conforming use. This past year a hail
storm caused severe, came through and caused severe damage to our vehicles, and we’re here
tonight to try to avoid future damage, as well as minimize outside storage. There’s a well known
shortage of storage space in this area, and a high amount of exterior storage. City staff has cited
multiple property owners for excess storage of boats and trailers and as a result there are many
cars parked outside. We would like to store 2 cars and a boat. The key issue here is the
definition of a reasonable sized garage and a reasonable amount of impervious surface. We
believe the council has already established definitions for both of these issues by recently
granting variances for neighbors on either side of us, and that we are well within these
definitions. Three years ago the council granted a variance to the Gunthers, our neighbors to the
north to build a garage that increased their total to 4 stalls. In reviewing the staff report and the
minutes from the council meeting for the Gunther variance, the staff, nor the council questioned
whether 4 stalls was reasonable. Further down the point, the council also approved a variance
for the addition of a third and fourth stall at 3605 Red Cedar. That’s this picture here. At least 7
variances that were listed on the staff report, at least the executive summary that just came out, at
least 7 of those variances involved 3 stalls or, 3 or 4 stalls and 3 of those 7 were for properties
that were immediately adjacent to our parcel. The staff has stated that the majority of the
property owners in the area have 2 stalls and that is the basis for the recommendation for 2 stalls
tonight. We disagree with that assessment. This drawing here, the pink areas show properties
that have in excess of 2 stalls. 22 of 38 lakeshore property owners have in excess of 2 stalls,
which I believe is a majority have more than 2 stalls. The staff in coming up with their numbers
is only counting the number of garage doors, not the total storage capacity of the garages. If we
look at the properties that are immediately adjacent to our property, two of these properties have
the capacity of 5 stalls with 4 doors. And 3 of the properties have capacity of 3 stalls with
what’s in excess of 30 feet with 2 doors. We own significantly more land than all 3 of the
neighbors with 30 foot wide garages. Why restrict us to a smaller garage than they have? Based
upon the council’s past variances and the existing conditions in the area, we feel that our
proposal for a 3 stall garage is well within the definition of reasonable. Concerning the second
issue, impervious coverage, 2 years ago the council granted a variance to the Johnson’s, our
neighbors to the west, for an identical front yard setback and 40% impervious coverage. Three
lots further west the council granted a variance for 50% coverage. We have proposed 31.
Looking again at the adjacent properties, our proposed 31% coverage is well below the
surrounding properties of 40%, 52%, 54%, 35% and 46%. You can see from the drawings,
pictures from the road, how much hard cover they have. These figures are somewhat different
then what the staff figured in their 29% calculation. The staff had limited information to work
with and we believe they’re miscalculation of 29% average hard cover is a gross
misrepresentation of reality. I could show you many pictures to illustrate my point. However
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
13
allow me two quick examples. This survey was one of those used by a staff in calculating the
29% average hard cover. They figured the impervious surface for this property at 20.7%, which
was the lowest of all that they looked at. If that were true, that would mean that there would be 4
times as much white as pink inside the blue lot area. Clearly this is not the case. The pink area
divided by the lot size is 41.4%, exactly twice what the staff figured. Also the staff does not
count sidewalks, rock, or the roof over the main entrance off to the side of the house. They have
to walk around the garage to get to their entry. In fact I listed all of the staff’s surveys, in many
cases they excluded sidewalks, patios, and rock. Our second example involves the Johnson
variance granted at 40%. However the staff used 31% in determining their calculation of 29%
average cover. Tom and Jackie are doing the majority of the work themselves and simply have
not finished their project. Nobody called them to ask if they were done, and yet the 31% was
used. With the inaccuracies I just described, it’s easy to see how the 29% average becomes
skewed dramatically. If we use the staff’s method calculating only footprint and driveway, our
proposed 31% coverage would be reduced to 20%, which would be lower than any of those that
the property, that the staff looked at. We purchased this back lot 4 years ago in order to mitigate
these types of issues, which we believe the council encourages. Our goal was to transfer density
from the lake lot to the back lot, which we believe is also a desirable goal. The neighborhood
supports this plan and would rather see a well designed garage than outside storage. The 3
closest neighbors have taken the time to write letters of support which I believe Kate handed out
right at the start of the meeting. Kate mentioned the existing driveway which was brought up
about 3:00 this afternoon. The possibility of giving up the existing gravel driveway in order for
staff to support this. We did consider that possibility. However I need to make you aware of
some facts. The entrance to the house is 9 feet above the road, and I’ll take back the survey that
Kate… It may be difficult to show all the detail but there’s 9 feet of grade change between the
road and the front door, and you’ll notice there’s a retaining wall basically all along the road,
except right at the driveway, and that retaining wall curves as it approaches the driveway. With
9 feet of grade change, that’s a very steep driveway. In fact the curve is there because you can’t
go straight up that driveway without bottoming out in a normal vehicle. You have to take that
curve and get a little bit of run at it to get up that relatively steep portion in order to get up into a
flatter area in which to park and get out of the vehicle. With that steep grade it’s very difficult to
provide access. It’s difficult for people to walk up the elderly, the handicap. We had a handicap
daughter in a wheelchair that could not have made this. There’s been other times when we’ve
had people in wheelchairs that had a difficult time getting up that driveway. In fact, Mary Jo’s
uncle lived next door in the property to the east, basically on the other side of the house. Lived
there for many years and in his elderly years he used to park in this driveway because it was
easier for him to get across and into his house from there, then to park in that shared area where
there’s a stairs and get up. We have no stairs. The stairs belongs to our neighbors. In addition
the access issue, we also think we need to be able to drop things off that are closer to the house.
The new driveway that we’re proposing with the 3 stall garage is approximately 140 feet from
the front door. It’s a long ways to travel if you’re trying to carry groceries or whatever. At some
point we hope to be able to improve the access to try to deal with that 9 feet. I don’t know
exactly how we’ll deal with that but at some point we hope to be able to deal with the access and
when we do deal with that, we are willing to give up the gravel driveway and put sod there, but
it’s not something we can do at this time. We did, as Kate mentioned, that they were trying to
find ways to mitigate and, mitigate the situation. We are open to that. We have proposed to staff
providing a permeable pavement design. It’s a design, there’s a number of alternatives.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
14
Ecostone is one of them. The Minnesota DNR endorses the use of permeable design. The
Landscape Arboretum has a demonstration installation of this, and both the cities of Mound and
Minnetonka accept permeable pavement as an acceptable solution. With that, before I close, do
you have any questions for me.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? No? Alright, very
good. Thank you.
Dave Bangasser: Thank you for your consideration.
Mayor Furlong: You bet. Ms. Aanenson, any I guess quick response in terms of some of the
information that he provided.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the nexus that we’re looking at is between, it’s hard when you
segment it, the variances and on every variance that we do, we always try to find mitigation, so
that was a component that was left out in each of these. Sometimes we achieved a greater
setback from the lake, so we would have to go back through and find out, and that’s a key
component that was missing because each one we try to put, is there something else that we can
achieve by giving here. Is there something else that we’re gaining? Maybe it was lakescape or
maybe it was a reduction of a non-conforming setback so that component was left out by this
part. We just did follow through what the Planning Commission had asked us to do. Again, I’m
not going to argue the percentages. There might have been a few that were off, but I don’t think
in generalities, if you want to talk about the Johnson’s. That lot’s a lot bigger. They also took
down the existing structure and made sight lines better, so again we look at each case
individually as you’re supposed to on a variance request. As we did on this one, we said is there
other things that we can do to try to get, making the situation better. So in this circumstance
they’re saying well, we added more pervious but what did we do to make the situation better?
And that’s what we’re trying to find. That area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: The only other one Kate was the question of 3 stalls versus 2. It’s not a
stall issue…
Kate Aanenson: Exactly, thank you. It’s not a stall issue. If you could get 4 on there, great.
That’s not the issue. We didn’t look at it to say it was a hard surface coverage issue. That was
really the nexus to say, that third stall is what pushed over the impervious. This is already over
so we said okay, well two is reasonable. And if we weren’t so far over on the impervious, or we
could get some better setbacks or something else that we could compromise or find some
mitigation to say well we got something back to improve the lake, maybe we would have gone
that way but it wasn’t because we always felt 2 was what we should get. It’s the hard surface
coverage. And that number we cast the difference between the 2 and the 3 and…
Mayor Furlong: And I guess a clarifying question there, the alternative motion includes a 2.28%
hard surface coverage variance, which was some estimate with regard to what the.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
15
Kate Aanenson: The third stall I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Or the difference between what was being requested and that number was the
third stall. Or in the area.
Councilman Peterson: …31 and we’re recommending 27.
Mayor Furlong: As the alternative.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so that would give you the additional, yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the Planning Commission minutes of their meeting, and I read the
notes and watched the meeting actually, some of the commissioners you know were having, were
struggling because they’re were saying water runoff would be going different directions. What
do you say about that? The fact that you know, some, the house, the runoff from the house
would be going down to the lake, but with the garage it’d be going an entirely different direction.
Kate Aanenson: Well I don’t know if that’s actually going to make a difference because the
house itself which is adjacent to the lake isn’t changing. It’s just what’s behind. I mean we
could put gutters on the garage and mitigate that so I’m not sure that that was really. The
Chairman of the Planning Commission’s here if you wanted to ask him to kind of summarize, if
you had any questions for him, I’d be happy to.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, given the topography I guess my question is even if it starts out on the
triangle piece where the garage is now to the west, it’s going to north or south.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s going to make it’s way to the lake.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And then just the one other comment. You know when we talked about the
driveway, I certainly recognize that that’s a good access to the house. Nobody can dispute that.
I guess our concern was that, you know if you went with a 3 car garage, what would be the…that
there still would be storage there for convenience sake to park next to the house and if the goal is
to get 3, then could you get a commitment that they’re going to be outdoor storage. Or some
parking out there, you know because that would be the goal, as I understood for the 3, the boat
and 2 cars, would there not be storage or parking that’s occurring now.
Councilman Peterson: If we got that though, how enforceable is it?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, exactly. That’d be a good will or good faith.
Mayor Furlong: That’s the challenge. Okay. Alright, well let’s bring it to the council for
discussion then. Thoughts or comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I still have one more question.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
16
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: How does the applicant feel about the proposal of a 2 stall garage?
Kate Aanenson: They want the 3.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: They don’t want to compromise.
Kate Aanenson: They would like 3, certainly.
Dave Bangasser: Well what’s the definition? You’re talking…what’s the definition of a 2 stall.
I don’t know what that is. I mean one, if we go down to a 2 stall garage, you’re just encouraging
us to have, almost forcing us to store outside, and so are we flexible? Yes, to a point but we’ve
got to be realistic too. There are certain storage needs. We live on a lake. You’ve got boats.
You’ve got other you know water toys, what not. Why not put it inside? That’s what the
neighborhood wants. The neighborhood wants us to put it inside and not have all this storage
outside.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Council members, discussion.
Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: A tough one, as Mr. Bangasser was giving his presentation, which was
very well done. Obviously I always try to strive to be fair and reasonable to everyone. But the,
the thing that keeps striking me is that for exactly the same reason why the neighborhood may be
higher is precisely why you should try to limit it whenever possible because, just because
everybody else has a 50% hard cover variance, you know that’s essentially why you want to try
to minimize when possible. The thing that strikes me with the lateness of the, talk about the
driveway and other things is, is I would be okay to considering it a 2 week delay to allow staff to
work on that a little bit more rather than you know after 3:00 thing, unless the Bangasser’s have
a construction deadline they’re trying to meet or something like that, to at least give that some
due. If it comes back that it doesn’t work, then you know that’s fine. At least we tried. To
mitigate that, so I guess I’d like to explore that a little bit more. At the end of the day I think
there’s some give and take. I’d be interested to see what the other members, I think I’m still on
the fence here. If I had to make a decision tonight, I’m not sure so I’d like to explore that
driveway piece a little bit more potentially.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I too would be willing to give them an extra 2 weeks to work things
out and figure out a more creative way to handle it. But it’s a hard thing to decide on. I guess
the whole issue is the hard surface coverage and, what I’m confused about is, obviously 2 stalls
are better than 1. 3 is even better than 2, I understand that but during the season, and maybe I’m
wrong about this but usually your boats and your jetskis are up on the dock or they’re not in the
garage, so that’s when you can park your cars in the garage when you’re using your lake home.
During the winter, when the season is over, that’s when you put your boats in the garage and you
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
17
don’t need to be too worried about protecting your cars as much. So that’s the argument I have
that they still would have reasonable use of a 2 stall garage and you wouldn’t necessarily have to
be storing things out in their lot, so I’d like to see the 2 week, 2 weeks to kind of hammer things
out. If they…otherwise I think I’m more inclined to vote in favor of staff’s recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah this is all about keeping the lake as clean as possible. I think we
kind of lose sight of that on occasion. And the variances that were cited this evening, as Kate
reinforced, you don’t want to, I hate to say we negotiated something for the betterment of the
lake but that’s essentially what we’ve done in those other cases. Where those variances and the
impervious surfaces might be higher, we did get, we did better the lake making those decisions.
And in this case I’m struggling with the thought that we’re bettering the lake by making that
decision. And that’s what I’m struggling with. I quite frankly don’t know what 2 weeks will do,
but I’m certainly willing to do that and I think if there’s something creative that we haven’t
found, I’m certainly amenable to affording the opportunity to search for that but you know I just
come back to what’s the lake getting here, and without being overly punitive to our residents but
you know I don’t like the feeling of horse trading here but I don’t know a different alternative to
maintaining the lake so, I’ll struggle with that so. I would look to staff to see if it would benefit
by a 2 week delay. If not, I’m ready to vote on it tonight.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my thoughts are similar in that each time we receive these requests you
look to see what else can be done to avoid providing a hard surface coverage variance. I never
enjoy approving these because it’s a storm water runoff issue, especially for properties this close
to any of our lakes. It’s important. I think here there’s an opportunity, because the property
owner owns property and the intensification here is further away from the lakeshore than it
would be near the lakeshore. That’s good when we can do that, but it is an intensification. It’s
whether they go from 1 to 2 or 1 to 3, they’re going and having driven by there, the one that’s
there now is not a very large one so whatever they do with is going to be an intensification.
…that there’s an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that they’re
looking for, by talking about number of stalls, and with other mitigation across the combined
parcel or the two parcels becoming one, and not, and be in a situation where we don’t have to
provide a hard surface variance coverage at all, I think we should pursue that. If that’s 2 weeks,
if that’s longer, just looking at the staff report, the application was received January 4th, so that
tells me if we’ve got 60 days plus another 60, if that counts here, we’ve got time. But I would
not be inclined tonight to approve either of these given that there may be an opportunity for the
property owner to achieve the inside storage that he’s talking about and avoid a hard surface
coverage variance at all. And so I would be hesitant going forward tonight. I’d like to, for
reasons that some of you stated, Councilman Peterson I think in particular, where’s the
advantage here? Of the examples that were mentioned that I was involved in, I know that there
was mitigation as well. That driveways were taken out or reduced or there were setbacks from
the lake that didn’t exist before that we increased. There were changes to it and here it is, it’s an
expansion and so, while I believe there’s an opportunity here to provide the inside storage that
the applicant’s looking for, I don’t know that we’re there yet and I’d like to spend some time to
find a way to work together with staff and the applicant to see what they can do to even eliminate
the need for hard surface coverage at all across the two parcels. That would be my
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
18
recommendation because knowing that that might be out there, I couldn’t see moving forward
with either of these two this evening. Other thoughts or are people consistent with that or is
there?
Councilman Peterson: Well I mean Kate, do you think that there’s value in getting you guys
some time to continue pursuing or do you think?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, be happy to meet with Mr. Bangasser. Come up with some other
solutions.
Mayor Furlong: With the extent that we’ve got some newer information, let’s dig into it and
let’s make sure that everybody understands what’s available and maybe there’s an opportunity
here.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the request for
hard surface coverage and two front yard setback variances to construct a 3 stall garage at
3633 South Cedar Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE, NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY 101 AND FUTURE HIGHWAY 212, APPLICANT, CHANHASSEN
GATEWAY PLACE, LLC: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.2 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS AND
1 OUTLOT AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I have a few exhibits here. This is the subject site. We talked
about this most recently in your work session. The new 101/212, so this application includes a
couple of things. One, the subdivision. Creating a parcel, a lot for this to be built on. And then
also site plan approval with a variance. In your staff report we went through the history of this
property, this area in itself. We did a PUD for the entire piece. Again the property’s actually on
both sides of the new 212. The property that we’re talking about specifically is this piece right
here with the apartment building. When we did this PUD it was always anticipated that that
would be apartment building. On the property immediately to the west will come in at a future
date. This property right here is being built by the Sand Company. As I indicated, this will be
the one lot that will be built on. It’s, the building itself will be 47 units and will include
multifamily, excuse me. 48 apartments and will include 2 and 3 bedroom units. In the
architecture itself, where we looked at putting this again, while we looked at the apartment
building in this location, the fact that it’s close to the park and ride we felt had a lot of benefits.
A nice transition as you come from the 101. Easy access. Some of the issues that we changed in
the staff report, which I know the applicants have some disdain with is the sidewalk being built
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
19
now along Lake Susan. We want the continuous sidewalk, even though they’re not coming in on
this phase. That will actually tie into the sidewalk along current 101, which will provide access
to those properties. I want to talk about the plat…architecture first. So there’s actually 3, 4 lots
being created. Sorry. So with the plat itself, while this does require storm water pond, this is a
project, can you zoom in on that a pinch. So this is the subject site so these are the lots that are
being created. This will be future townhouse sites. This is the sidewalk I’m talking about.
Taking it into the existing trail. This is going to be a storm water pond. Future residential on the
north side abutting the Klingelhutz property, and there’s also some additional right-of-way that’s
being dedicated with the new 101. One of the things we talked about with this ponding, on the
southern area too, working that out with the Lake Riley improvements, but this project itself and
it’s ponding that will be built now to accommodate, also accommodate this future development.
So that’s the plat in and of itself. Again the preliminary plat starts on page 12 of the staff report.
There’s findings with the subdivision located at that section of the project. Now about the site
plan in and of itself. Again we’re looking at the orientation. We wanted this to be a highly
articulated building so we worked hard on the orientation of the building. Access. We worked
that with Lake Susan Drive. Temporarily this, as we talked about earlier in the work session,
101 will not be constructed before this is done so it will have access coming off of old 101 until
that switch is made, so they will have to provide and work with MnDot on the improvements on
Lake Susan and giving access to that. Again the timing of this is related to the funding that we
received tonight and being able to use those dollars. There is required underground parking with
this project and that’s addressed in the staff report. Because it is 2 and 3 bedroom units and a
highly articulated building, there are 61 enclosed spaces. It does require 70 because of the
number of units, 2 and 3 bedrooms in the staff report on page 9, we go through the requirements
that we feel that the parking was adequate, and we are recommending approval of the variance.
The overall parking, including surface parking. Surface parking lot parking would exceed the
requirements so we’re comfortable with that. There is some fencing that will be required along
this side. We have the plans for that. The landscaping which we think again provides a nice
mitigation. Now I’d just like to talk a little bit about architecture available. And so there’s two
difference colors on there, the tan and the beige. Again we think it’s a highly articulated
building. With the height in itself with the traffic on 101, again we believe that should provide
mitigation for noise. They are also required, you know they’ll have air conditioning and the likes
of that as we looked at some other projects will provide the noise mitigation but the visual aspect
we think is, because it’s the material mix and the detail on the building, that it’s highly
articulated and will fit, be a nice compliment to the area. So we are recommending approval of
the site plan itself and the conditions for that as well as the variance for the parking requirements
are also found in the staff report. So with that, if there’s any questions I’d be happy to answer
them. Otherwise we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat and site plan with
variances as found in the staff report starting on page 14. And I’d be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Peterson: Kate would you, I hate to make you take things off the table but one of
the first drawings you had was kind of the whole area. Could you spend a little bit of time and
just kind of walking through what’s adjacent to all of this.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
20
Kate Aanenson: As you recall the park and ride is located in this facility. 600 deck park and
ride and then there will be some residential, and then also be some commercial. So that’s on the
west side of the new 101, which is moving over. This is current 101. It’s moving over. So with
that, there was with the PUD some other commercial office shown in this area that’s being
developed by another developer, and again this is one of those areas that’s under study. They
may want to do some other things as part of…group looking at that area itself. Then the rest of
this.
Councilman Peterson: Before you go off of that, to the far west there, what’s the intent?
Kate Aanenson: Over here?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: There’s a pond and that’s the pond I was talking about.
Councilman Peterson: No, the building. Is that, is that commercial too?
Kate Aanenson: This?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: This is actually an apartment building and that’s something that the other…
that’s looking at that property may want to change that. This is the one area of the city, well
actually there’s two areas that we have this mixed use development. So it can have commercial
or residential. As proposed in the PUD when the Sand Company came through, they actually put
that in there. That doesn’t mean it can’t change to something else under that PUD but would
have to amend the PUD, and we felt we didn’t have enough information about additional
commercial until we finished this site so we’ve asked them to wait before we change it, to be
consistent with what we’ve told other people that want to change to more commercial. So there
is a storm water pond over here. That’s one that we will have the developer do as part of the
Lake Riley improvements. So we’ve got the park and ride. We also just rezoned this property
right here to do twin homes and we just recently approved that. And then you’ve got the
Springfield neighborhood here. So we worked hard with the, and you’ll be seeing the park and
ride development coming shortly, probably in the next couple months to come in with that, to
work with the neighbors in putting those PUD’s together. So the rest of this will be coming in in
the future. One of the other concerns that we had is, you know how do we make this piece work
with the rest of the property to the north, the Klingelhutz property because there will be access
via 101 going to the north. So whether you have additional access coming in here, these two
parcels tie together so that’s something that we’ll be working with the developer on and trying to
make sense of how that lays out instead of having a little narrow piece. So right now, this is the
project that we’re working on but all this area will be changing as 212 comes in and the
extension of Lake Susan. Again the lower density, what we looked at in the PUD to blend, make
that transition between existing Lake Susan and moving up towards the apartments. And then
with the 212 it creates a natural buffer where you’ve got the 212 kind of provides that break
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
21
between the residential there so it’s kind of a different feel with kind of that 3 quarter lot on 3
collectors. 101, Lyman and 212. So that’s kind of the super area.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I was just going to say too, again you see the proximity to the park
and ride and then some convenience commercial which we thought, that’s why we wanted to
connect back up to that trail to get back under the 212, provide access for those folks to get to
convenience commercial.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So this area doesn’t have to wait for the market study?
Kate Aanenson: This apartment?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, all the building’s we’re talking about.
Kate Aanenson: No, because that’s all residential. The only one that we ask to wait is anybody
that wanted to change to more commercial. That was, those were the ones who we’re asking to
wait til the study’s completed. Otherwise if they have their zoning in place, then if it’s consistent
if they’re asking for a change, then we would ask them to wait.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilman Lundquist?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, on the parking spaces. Where do we use, the guideline that we
used for the number of spaces per unit, and the number of bedrooms. What’s the basis for that?
Kate Aanenson: Well, you know when we updated the city code, that isn’t something that we
looked at and we probably should have. It may be antiquated. The way it works right now is
there’s 61, for example on this project there’d be 61. They’re not necessarily assigned to any
unit. They’re kind of separately leased so if you’ve got someone that only wants 1 and there’s
more available, so we believe within that there’s probably plenty to go around if somebody
wanted 2 or 3, it would work internally. That they would solve that through the management
itself. Most of these units are geared for the 3 bedrooms, for young families so we don’t believe
we should have a problem with more than 1 or 2 cars per unit.
Councilman Lundquist: So each unit gets at least 1 and the other ones are first go first serve?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that’s, right. If they don’t use them, they’d be offered to
somebody else that would, right.
Councilman Lundquist: And the engineering and cost required to get to that 70, as you said in
your staff report is a significant piece to be getting?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and they have some concerns with that. The sidewalk along the
existing Lake Susan, is that what you’re talking about? Correct.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
22
Councilman Lundquist: Well, to make the building big enough to get the 70…
Mayor Furlong: To avoid the variance.
Kate Aanenson: Right, I think that’s, it’s pretty onerous. We don’t really have that many 3
bedroom units in the city. And I think it would be onerous. I’m not sure, we really don’t have a
parking problem with underground parking. A lot of the units that we already have it’s never
been a problem and even when you have 2 bedrooms with 2 drivers, I don’t see that as a
problem.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: I guess to follow up on that line of questioning with the parking, by your
comments here, should we be reviewing those requirements?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Would we expect those same requirements of someone else elsewhere in the
city or would we also say that’s too onerous?
Kate Aanenson: I think we need to re-evaluate that and we’ve got that on our punch list of
things to re-evaluate in the city code because we didn’t when we updated it, look at that.
Mayor Furlong: Based on what you know now and maybe this has not been looked at yet, and so
that’s fine. Are our standards similar to surrounding communities?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think you also you have to look at type of product. Amenities. If
you’re looking at a luxury condo, maybe it’d be different. If you’re looking at, again this is next
to transit so we’re anticipating that there might be more ridership, so I think that was some of our
rationale too for the variance but we will look at the surrounding communities standards and
what we have to date.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And well, that’s a question for the applicant so I’ll wait for them. Good,
thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here
this evening? Would you like to address the council on any matter?
Jamie Thelen: My name is Jamie Thelen with Gateway Place, and we went through the staff
review and we’re okay with everything, all the conditions. We just do have one request on the
map that we have here. We’re putting in the sidewalk in orange. That has been added which
makes a lot of sense to connect to the 4 way at future 101 and Lake Susan Drive. And we’re also
making a connection to the north to cover people coming from the north side too, which is fine.
We would make one request, the highlighted area in yellow is not in front of our property at all
and we would request that that would be delayed as not part of our project. What we would be
willing to do if, we do understand that it’s tough to tell how far out townhomes are and it’s an
important sidewalk, we think it is. We just request that if the site, if there’s no site plan in
review by the time we’re getting ready to get a Certificate of Occupancy, that we put that
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
23
sidewalk in at that point. If something, if they come in right after us for the townhomes, that that
would be required for their site plan because we are putting a pretty extensive sidewalk system
already on our property so we, that’s one request we would like to make.
Mayor Furlong: Just so I understand your request, you’re saying don’t require that unless there
isn’t a site plan for that property at the time that you go for Certificate, and then you would put it
in at that point.
Jamie Thelen: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: You have about a one year construction, is what you’re saying?
Jamie Thelen: Yeah, we’d be looking at opening up basically the same time as Lake Susan
Drive, which is probably in July. June-July of 2007 so, somewhere in that range. We’re about
12 months of construction. And we do understand that it’s important to have that sidewalk. It
makes sense. It does connect. We would just ask you know, we’re putting in quite a bit already
in front of our property just, this is quite a bit off our site and if we could have, then we could put
that in the development agreement if you’d be open to that. Otherwise we’re okay with all of the
conditions.
Paul Oehme: That’s fine. I guess if maybe just a letter of credit, just so we have the assurance
that it will go in.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’ll work with the attorney’s office to figure something out to get that
security or understanding.
Jamie Thelen: Yep as part of our development agreement we have to put together a letter of
credit for the public improvements and we can just include that in there.
Mayor Furlong: And it would be your request that if that property develops or if there’s a site
plan for it, that that sidewalk be a condition of that.
Jamie Thelen: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: And is that something staff that we would be reasonable?
Paul Oehme: I think we can work with them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Jamie Thelen: Otherwise I have nothing else.
Mayor Furlong: So I don’t know that we need, so that would be a matter for the development
contract, but I think that’s on our agenda this evening. So we may want to hold on that, is that
correct? Or is it not?
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
24
Kate Aanenson: So they’ll come back.
Todd Gerhardt: This is site plan.
Mayor Furlong: This is just site plan, okay.
Kate Aanenson: …and typically those are our concern. We’ll put that language in there.
Mayor Furlong: That was an earlier matter on the agenda, the development contract so this
wouldn’t affect any of the conditions at this point? Something that we could work out with the
development contract. Okay. I just had a quick question, if I could, and I don’t know if
anybody, does anybody else have a question for the applicant? With regard to the parking, and
as I looked at, based upon the shape of the building, the footprint of the building, you have
angles. You have a right, 90 degree curve. To me that’s got to affect the availability of
underground parking space, based upon the architecture of the shape of the building. Is that
correct?
Jamie Thelen: Yeah, I’ll let Richard, our architect talk a little bit about that because we, as soon
as we saw the requirement he actually did some other layouts, more efficient layout of a straight
building which we don’t want to do and you wouldn’t want to see and it’s pretty nearly
impossible to meet that requirement.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, there’s my answer.
Councilman Peterson: Just what Craig wanted to see.
Councilman Peterson: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: And you didn’t come forward with this first.
Richard Hennings: maybe not the politically correct thing to do but when that comment came
up, and I was concerned that why can’t we get as much parking in this building as we should
here. So it struck me that an exercise of just drawing a box that couldn’t be more efficient then
that rectangle, and that box then consists of another 48 unit apartment building with a common
mix of apartments. 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom and you end up with a box, you can
see 64 by 330 feet long. And then allocating just kind of minimum space for the stairways and
the lobby and elevator space in that garage, you can see I end up with 62 parking spaces in that
one so slightly better than the stretched out building, but what I think that tells you is that
anybody that’s going to do a 3 story building with underground parking is going to have trouble
meeting your parking requirement. And I first thought, like you said Kate, that it was onerous to
put a lot of 3 bedrooms in, but I actually looked at the situation with 1 bedrooms, because they
get so much narrower, it doesn’t get better. It actually gets worst so the only way you’d meet
this requirement is if the basement space were considerably bigger than the upper floor space,
and that’s not an impossible design but it’s not the design we look for in this building so.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
25
Kate Aanenson: I just want to clarify too from the findings of fact that was one of the basis
points that we put in there, because you were concerned about applying this to somewhere else.
Kind of we had the discussion earlier. One of the findings of the variance was that based on the
shape of the building.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other follow up questions at this point? If not, thoughts
and comments. Council discussion.
Councilman Peterson: You know I was the one that pushed hard to kind of set the tone to get
something that was distinctive and certainly articulated, and I think they’ve met that challenge
and I applaud both architect and staff for working together to make that happen so I’m pleased
with the way the building has come to fruition in it’s look and feel. I think the conditions that
staff has got in there to continue tweaking, you know are appropriate. I think the sidewalk issue
I think it sounds like a reasonable request personally. And I think we should move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it’s a good building and a good location and yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: I would agree with Councilman Peterson also. Think the building
works well in that spot with the transit and the access right there. Some mixed use on that so
getting a good application of using zoning to create an area that fits well together and then
planning that goes along with that so, looking forward to moving ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My comments would be similar. I think it is a well designed
building. It looks nice and I think it will look nice as, and provide a nice entryway as people
enter into the city off of Highway 212. Coming off the intersection there. I certainly like the
shape of this building versus the alternative A that we saw this evening. And some thought went
into it. Both in terms of the design and the color and what they’re doing in terms of providing a,
some different housing products as well to our city, so I think that’s a positive as well. And it’s,
there’s going to be a lot of development in this area but to Councilman Lundquist’s comments,
there’s a lot of thought and coordinated effort going on all around this area and I think that’s
great and I think it’s going to be something that everybody will be proud of as well, so I certainly
support this project. Any other comments? If not, we have a motion starting on page 14 of the
staff report. 432 of our electronic packet, if somebody would like to make a motion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion the City Council approve the preliminary plat for
Planning Case 06-05 for Gateway North as shown on the plans received January 6, 2006, subject
to the following conditions 1 through 16.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to keep going?
Councilman Peterson: Right below 16 is another motion.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
26
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I make a motion the City Council approve the Site Plan with a
variance for the reduction of 9 enclosed parking spaces for Planning Case 06-05 for Chanhassen
Gateway Place as shown on the plans received January 6, 2006, subject to the following
conditions 1 through 21.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Including findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: This is based upon the findings of facts contained in the report?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I knew that’s what you said.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: You’re listening to Councilman Peterson too much with his motion. Made and
seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-05 for Gateway North as shown on plans
received January 6, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer design calculations with full-size drainage map for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event.
2. Work with staff to revise the pond design calculations for the 10- and 100-year storm event.
3. Realign Lot 1, Block 2 full access perpendicular at Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive
intersection.
4. The applicant is required to coordinate with MnDOT on the full access at Lake Susan Drive
and the storm pond outlet control sewer construction.
5. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with all regularity agency permits:
Watershed District, MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Health Department, etc.
6. On the grading plan:
a. Show an emergency over flow.
b. Show stormwater pond easement.
c. Show silt fence Type II around the proposed pond.
d. Extend Type I silt fence to the north along the west side.
e. Show minimum 75-feet construction rock entrance.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
27
f. Add a bench mark.
7. On the utility plan:
a. Show the watermain within the street Right-of-Way as a public utility.
b. Revise the existing sanitary sewer flow direction.
c. Add a note that any connection to any existing structure must be core drilled.
d. Show all utility sewer pipe type, class, and size.
e. Show all utility manholes rim and invert elevations.
f. Add a gate valve to Lot 1, Block 1.
8. Plan and profile views are required for the entire public utility.
9. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City
with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow and enter into a
development contract.
10. On the plans, show the pedestrian ramps and a sidewalk connection between the south and
north sides of proposed Lake Susan Drive and add a sidewalk along the north portion of Lot
1, Block 2.
11. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading.
12. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval.
13. If fill is coming from and/or going to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit
will be required for the other property.
14. All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched
within two weeks of site grading.
15. Add City Detail Plates Nos. 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202,
3101, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, and 5301.
16. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls and driveway widths.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves of site plan with a variance for the reduction of nine enclosed parking spaces for
Planning Case 06-05 for Chanhassen Gateway Place as shown on the plans received January 6,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall replace the Colorado blue spruce specified on the landscape plan with an
alternate evergreen species.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
28
2. One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake Susan
Drive. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
five feet in height. These signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property
line.
3. Additional information must be submitted pertaining to the height and materials used for the
privacy fence located east of the tot-lot and picnic area.
4. Details on the storm sewer connection to proposed Lake Susan Drive and proposed TH 212
should be provided. An emergency overflow for the proposed pond should be illustrated.
The applicant should submit a routing plan for any pond overflows from the site to a public
water body.
5. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all storm
water infrastructure, including any emergency overflow structures. The storm water pond
should be platted in an outlot.
6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open
Steeper than 3:1 7 days when the area is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
7. Rock construction entrance shall be installed as illustrated on Chanhassen Detail Plate 5301.
8. Wimco or similar inlet protection shall be installed at all inlets that may receive storm water
from site per Chanhassen Detail Plate 5302A. All inlet protection shall be inspected and
maintained to comply with NPDES requirements.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
10. Temporary stabilization of the exposed area shall include a straw or hay cover at a rate of 2
tons per acre, disc anchored into the soil, including the area around the apartment building.
11. To minimize tracking and erosion around the apartment building during construction,
temporary cover of straw or wood chips shall be placed around the building in amounts
sufficient to control rutting.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
29
12. The plans shall be revised to show a concrete washout area, BMPs for containment and
potential stockpile locations.
13. Silt fence (Chanhassen Type 1) shall be installed around the north and east side of the pond
within 24 hours of permanent outlet installation.
14. The plans shall be revised to show inlet protection for sediment during construction for the
trench drain at the garage and shall include a detail.
15. Submit a detailed lighting and signage plan consistent with the Chanhassen Gateway PUD
Development Design Standards.
16. Building Official conditions:
a. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
b. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c. An accessible route must be provided to the building, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d. All parking areas, including parking garage, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces.
e. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building
Code Chapter 1341.
f. The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
17. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Yellow curbing and “no parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact locations of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
c. Builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division
policies. Copies enclosed.
c.1 1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems.
c.2 4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans.
c.3 7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings.
c.4 29-1992 regarding premise identification.
c.5 34-1993 regarding water service installation.
c.6 36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing.
c.7 40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.
c.8 06-1991 regarding fire lane signage.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
30
c.9. 52-2005 regarding commercial plan review submittal criteria.
d. Show on utility plan location of post indicator valve (PIV).
e. The hydrant on the south end of the loop shall be moved approximately 30 feet northeast.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and approval.
f. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2000 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4
g. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
18. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of the final plat for Gateway North.
19. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement.
20. The building shall comply with the Planned Unit Development building setback
requirements.”
21. The applicant shall revise the plans to show a clock on the vertical element of the building.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on council presentations this evening? Just a quick comment as
a follow up to a previous work session item where we talked about legislative initiatives and
priorities. We have arranged a meeting for Councilman Lundquist and myself and Mr. Gerhardt
to meet with Representative Hoppe this coming Thursday and we’re working with Senator
Ortman to meet with her as well, so we expect that meeting to take place soon.
Councilman Peterson: You couldn’t get them both together huh?
Mayor Furlong: We couldn’t. They were not, we’re unsure if the Senator can join us on
Thursday but we do have a meeting scheduled for Senator, or Representative Hoppe and we are
going to continue to do that. Are these related to that?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Gerhardt, you want to.
City Council Meeting – February 27, 2006
31
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: What you have in front of you are our 2006 legislative policies. This is a draft.
As Tom mentioned we have a meeting this coming Thursday with Representative Hoppe to
present our priorities. I will be attaching resolutions of support for the local road improvement
fund, some of the maps, similar to the documents I showed you at the last meeting. With that I’ll
send out an electronic copy to you tomorrow, if anybody wants to see an electronic form but if
you have any questions or concerns on how these documents or priorities are written, let me
know. But I did put in a background and then both Mayor Furlong and Councilman Brian
Lundquist’s address so if Senator Ortman or Representative Hoppe need to get a hold of us,
phone is there.
Mayor Furlong: So you’d be interested in any comments on this.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, prior to Thursday’s meeting would be nice.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
Todd Gerhardt: Last item, we’ll be hosting the School District 112 Leaders meeting here in the
Senior Center on Friday. Tom and I typically attend those meetings so if there’s any issues that
you’d like us to address at that meeting, let us know. Both Carver County and every mayor in
School District 112 will be in attendance. And that’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? If there’s no other business to
come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:25
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan
Keefe, and Debbie Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
ROSSAVIK ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RSF; AND
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-01, ARILD ROSSAVIK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to restate
the findings of the study the City undertook regarding land use for this neighborhood, if a traffic
study was conducted for Powers Boulevard, neighborhood reaction to the request and precedence
within the city. Commissioner Zorn asked for clarification on the possibility of redevelopment
in this area. Acting Chair McDonald asked for clarification on the private driveway and traffic
circulation on Powers Boulevard. Mark Kelly, an attorney from Excelsior spoke on behalf of
the applicant, Mr. Rossavik. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. Steve Buan,
8740 Flamingo Drive, immediately west of the property, stated the general consensus of the
neighborhood is that they all agree with what the City has affirmed many times over, that the
large lot designation for these properties is appropriate due to the nature of the landscape in area.
Planning Commission Summary – February 21, 2006
2
He also commented about the parkland and wildlife corridors that would be affected by further
development. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive questioned the setbacks on the proposed lots.
Acting Chair McDonald closed the public hearing. After comments from the commission, the
following motions were made.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for
Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact; that the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single
Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan designation of the property; and that the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a
variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the
property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2006 as presented.
Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:35 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan
Keefe, and Debbie Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
ROSSAVIK ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RSF; AND
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-01, ARILD ROSSAVIK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Does anyone want to start?
Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a couple questions. It sounds to me since the last time that we were here,
and I was here for the last time that they came through, the City was going to do a study in
regards to whether that should, that neighborhood should change and it sounds to me, just I think
to restate what you said, the City essentially came back and said, there isn’t enough and maybe
you can sort of restate it.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
2
Generous: Well in February of 2005 the City Council did affirm the land use for residential
large lot for that subdivision. They felt that it was appropriate. One of the things that we look at
is providing a full range of housing types. Estate type housing is one of the housing types that
we have in our community. There’s not a lot of them and we’re not going to create any new
estate type homes so, suburban style development, there are other locations for that. There is
land currently guided and vacant that’s guided residential low density. That would be
appropriate for a suburban subdivisions.
Keefe: Did we do a traffic study along there? I’m trying to remember if that was something that
was requested as a part of that. Because I remember there was some question that came out of
that meeting as to the level of traffic along there and what would happen if we were to put it into
a higher density type of.
Generous: Well there wasn’t a study done specifically for that amendment because adding 5 lots
is 50 trips a day on average so it wouldn’t have a great impact. Powers Boulevard yes, does
have, will be carrying a lot of traffic. Should you add additional traffic to it, that could be an
argument that no, you don’t want to. The 2 lots are sufficient. The rest of them come off the
cul-de-sac.
Keefe: I did see the one e-mail or letter that came in from, it looks like the Bizek or Bizek
family where, as I recall from the last meeting a number of the neighbors were opposed to this.
Have we had change in their position that we’re aware of or did we receive anything beyond
what the Bizek’s have received?
Generous: We only had that one letter. I’ve talked to 2 neighbors and they were both, they
didn’t want to see the change. They thought it was premature.
Keefe: Okay. And then do we have, last question. Do we have instances where we change one
lot in a neighborhood like this and not, I mean at least what we typically see are neighborhoods
come in with a change. This would be really, I mean it is a large lot but, you know where we
would just sort of change a lot in the middle of the neighborhood and not change the others?
Generous: Not since I’ve been here and generally we don’t. It’s either an all or nothing
proposition. And all the developments that come in for suburban or residential single family
have been guided for low density, residential low density. We have a case coming forward that’s
actually guided for medium density and they’re requesting a down zoning if you will. Down
guiding.
Keefe: Thank you.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: No questions for staff.
McDonald: Debbie? Deborah?
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
3
Zorn: Just have a question of clarification. You indicated that there was some sewer lines that
were placed in this area in case there were future redevelopment. Can you just talk to what that
redevelopment would be. Would that be if this neighborhood were to collectively say let’s
subdivide? Would that qualify or what would qualify as redevelopment?
Generous: That would be one if the neighborhood came in and the City determined that it was
appropriate to go to a higher density. I believe there’s a lift station right, just across the street
from the site. The way the force main to service this. There is a manhole, or actually I think it’s
a 8 inch line that’s across under Powers Boulevard at the end of the driveway. The applicant,
one of his issues is with the city ordinance says that if you have sewer available you’re supposed
to connect. Our ordinance actually says within 150 feet, and we’ve been interpreting that from
the building, not from the property line and this is, his house is over 200 feet from that sewer line
ending. As a matter of fact the house to the north is almost 200 feet away too so neither of them
are in real close proximity. …the property on the east side, down on Lyman does have potential
for subdivision. It’s guided for residential low density. It has the big wetland complex in the
back of it so we don’t know if, when that would happen but we’re trying to be, have proactive in
widening the infrastructure should that ever be necessary.
McDonald: I have a question for you concerning the private drive. You said that if we approve
this, you want the private drive to go all the way to the south property line. What are the limits
on access on a private drive. I thought we were limited to 3 houses.
Generous: You can have up to 4 homes accessing via a private street. Yeah, private street
requires a variance but.
McDonald: Okay.
Generous: In the rear of the lot to the south is wider so we anticipate that this lot were to
develop at a suburban density, they may split off the northern end of their property and that
would be their access. It really narrows down as you go to Oakside Circle, and there’s some, I
believe some wetland, or at least lowlands on the street side of that property.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, as you’re coming out of this
development you’re going to be making a left hand turn on Powers. At that point is the road
divided? Is there a median there or are you able to make a left hand turn?
Generous: You can’t make a left directly off, no you have to go down south to Oakside Circle
and then there’s.
McDonald: Turn around in there and come back to go north on Powers.
Generous: Correct.
McDonald: I have no further questions. At this point I would ask the applicant to come forward
to present their case.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
4
Mark Kelly: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name’s Mark Kelly.
I’m an attorney practicing in the city of Excelsior. Mr. Rossavik is not able to be here. He’s
abroad. I’d like to thank Mr. Generous for his comments in his report over the years he’s worked
with Mr. Rossavik on this matter, trying to… It’s clear from the presentation that’s been made by
staff that this area has always been anticipated by the city to be ultimately redeveloped. While
it’s lawful to maintain large lots…changes have happened along this area. Just to the west you
approved a subdivision. A substantial one. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you have a
very large development, 440 units going in. You have the highway being extended. The
intersection at Powers Boulevard and Lyman is going to be a very major intersection, drawing
traffic heading west and east… Traffic’s coming from the north down Powers Boulevard… It is,
while it is true that typically one would rezone an area larger, the request at this time for the
comprehensive plan change that will permit the zoning change…reasonable and in fact if you do
change the zoning it doesn’t mean the properties are going to be taxed or…impact is going to
happen to them. It does mean that they will have the opportunity, the way Mr. Rossavik is
suggesting and redefine his property for…that smaller lot subdivisions produce more
economical, more affordable housing for people rather than as in this case one house on a very
large parcel. That was a norm when I was growing up some years ago in the whole area and the
like. I grew up on Christmas Lake Road…used to ride my bicycle out to Chanhassen…but the
reality is that that has changed and just to be able to afford housing in the western suburbs means
that you’re going to have to have smaller lots and ultimately unfortunately those smaller lots are
going to be found on properties that have higher traffic. Some minor arterial, it’s on a collector
street… It’s going to have major traffic on it. It already does. The City’s already planned this
matter substantially. This area has a right hand turn lane. You can go right-in or right-out and
turn around to the south and… The plan of including the extended causeway to accommodate
traffic to the south is logical. If you look at that property to the south, that will remain and they
can parallel a lot of these services by this common driveway. It’s unfortunate that just like
happened back in 1997 there about when the Bizek family was interested in… To date they’re
unwilling to discuss the matter. Their property would benefit by being, having the opportunity at
some point to be able to be subdivided. It’s not within Mr. Rossavik’s ability to convince them
of the economic value of that… Some of the items that have been raised in the report by Mr.
Generous, we would…there is some bluff area and some trees, largely on the west side. That is
preserved by the plat. It was preserved by the plat when it was presented last time, and there are
adequate building pads to accommodate the use of 5 lots as has been prescribed. One of the
curiosities of this now…when Mr. Rossavik wanted to consider having this matter divided into a
3 lot subdivision, perhaps make it more preferable, the city staff noted that that would not be
acceptable under the rezoning that we’re requesting. That the lot then wouldn’t be in fact small
enough, so we went back to a 5 lot subdivision. So the City has the opportunity here to provide
an equally valid use for the land. One that the economy and the city does need a mix of more
affordable housing for new housing along this area here. The sewer and water was built some
years ago. It has never been recovered in terms of investment, which I understand was
approximately a quarter of a million dollars. The sewer and water, as you’ve been advised,
located right at the northeast corner of the property and despite an application from…the City
has refused Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to connect his property to sewer and water. Something
everyone here in this group has sewer and water and city services. For whatever reason we don’t
understand the City has refused Mr. Rossavik’s… It is entirely possible as a city to look to your
comprehensive plan and find what allows you to hang your hat on and say this can’t be…
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
5
Comprehensive plan’s…stated in broad terms…but here, when you consider the fact that the
property immediately to the northeast, the northwest, to the north, sewer and water when new
subdivisions are approved immediately to the west, they…312/212 redevelopment, 444 houses
going into the south, just a short distance away. This is not…reasonable request…the fact that
Mr. Rossavik does come back to ask for…we ask your consideration and understand that
approving a simple rezoning to match it in with the remaining…is entirely appropriate at this
time. I’d welcome any questions from anyone.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, start with you. Deborah?
Larson: In the issue about wanting to connect to the sewer and water, what have they told you is
the reason why you couldn’t?
Mark Kelly: As you heard from Mr. Generous, they’ve interpreted the code as precluding any
requirement…given that the purpose of the metropolitan urban services…this was done in 1994.
We’re in 2006.
Larson: That’s all I have.
Keefe: Just one quick question. In regards to the neighbors, I mean it seems like a lot of the
neighbors don’t want to rezone. How do you resolve that in terms of?
Mark Kelly: Well first of all as a legal standpoint, the fact that any one citizen doesn’t approve
of something, it is not a reason in and of itself sufficient to deny an application. Secondly, it’s
unfortunate that they may not recognize the benefits that they… Mr. Rossavik in fact opens up
opportunities that they may choose to make use of or choose not to make use of at their own
leisure. They are not required to change or sell their property…make any, or incur any expenses
as a result of rezoning. You’re not going to see increased taxes, anything of that sort. The fact
of the matter, the marketplace is not going to reward anybody with additional dollars on the basis
that their property might be subdivided in the future. Until you get it subdivided, there’s no
additional dollars there that are going to be paid for any one in general, except maybe…result in
additional money.
McDonald: I have no questions for you at this point. I guess I would, if there are no further
questions from the commission, I’m going to open it up to the floor. Anyone that would wish to
make comments, this is a public meeting. Thank you very much Mr. Kelly.
Steve Buan: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I’m Steve
Buan, a resident of, at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which if you can bring this map up here, I’ll point it
out. Is this lot right there. Just immediately to the west of the property. Been here before.
Some new faces on the Planning Commission. Been here several times. This is the fourth time,
or the fifth time. …this last February at City Council. I can’t speak for my neighbors but the
general consensus is that the, we have all agreed with what the City has affirmed many times
over, that this is, that the large lot designation for these properties down below us is appropriate
due to the nature of the landscape in there. The parkland. If you bring up the map here again.
Park, city parkland immediately to the west, southwest of the property is designated as a natural
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
6
landscape park. They call it Vista View Park there, and that area is utilized extensively by the
urban wildlife that still survives and the parkland across Powers Boulevard, down in here that the
City owns is a large wetland complex adjacent to Lake Susan, and sitting in my back yard on my
patio, I can see numerous species of wildlife trying to bring back and forth between those
properties, utilizing that large lot open space that we’ve provided for them, and to choke that off
by cramming in every single, solitary possible housing structure we can is not benefiting the
people of Chanhassen with all the unique features that we have out here. And that’s been
reaffirmed several times at the Planning Commission and City Council level that that’s an
appropriate land use, partially to preserve that nature that the part of Chanhassen that people
really like out here. It’s a very landscape up and down of wetlands and everything and to change
that character now, once 5, 3.9 acre rezoning, is not really going to serve the community that is
Chanhassen. I don’t know, there’s just some things about that this just keeps coming back over
and over and over again. You know kind of like this will be my life in Chanhassen to come to
the Planning Commission meetings. And I don’t begrudge Mr. Rossavik of trying to maximize
the use of his property but I also like the democratic process of living here and having a say in
how things happen and for your volunteering on a commission like this to listen to people and try
to make the best for everyone so, I just think the City Council did, in fact one of my comments at
the last meeting was that the comprehensive plan direct zoning should be reviewed for the entire
Hillside Oaks and the Planning Commission recommended that that be done. The City Council
looked, took it up. Did it. Reaffirmed the zoning. I think that should be it for quite a long time
but I guess that’s all I’ve got to say.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the
commission?
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I had some questions
about…on the drawing for Lot 1, the 30 foot setback.
Aanenson: For the both, they both meet the 30 foot.
Janet Paulsen: Okay, so…
Generous: With the northerly lot has to be 30 feet and the Powers Boulevard is also 30 feet. So
it doesn’t have a rear per se.
Janet Paulsen: I can’t tell…
Generous: I don’t know that, we know this for sure is exceeding 30 feet. This may be a little
closer but they could shift it. There’s area to do it because there’s a 10 foot on this side.
Janet Paulsen: And then Lot 3 on that one…and the report doesn’t show a 30 foot setback…
Generous: Yes, I agree.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
7
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission?
Seeing no one get up, we’ll close the public meeting and we’ll bring the deliberation back to the
commissioners and who wants to start?
Papke: As I was thinking through this, I live in a very similar neighborhood with large lots and
there’s a certain feeling that you get on a large lot neighborhood like this. Feeling of space and
so on, and I tried to imagine how I would feel if one of my neighbors decided to put 4 or 5
homes on their lot, and I think I would feel like that would diminish the value of my property and
I don’t think I would be very pleased. And so personally I can understand how the neighbors
would not really care for this. I think it goes against our principle to have an isolated rezoning
and re-use like this. I think this is an all or nothing deal. You know either we decide when we
redo the comprehensive plan to change this or we say no again. I don’t think we can do an island
like this, so that’s it. Thanks.
McDonald: Deborah.
Zorn: I wasn’t on the commission last time this came in front of us but I feel that there’s
substantial process that this has been though at this point, and feel very confident in the process
that has been had up to this point and that there has been some evaluation. That there’s been no
change in circumstance so I would have to agree with Kurt and be in favor of the denial.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie.
Larson: Pretty much of the same though you know. This stretch of road, I go down it at least 4
times a day, and I know that they’re beautiful large lots and to see an island of small houses
amongst the other large lots I think would be really odd. But moreover than that, it’s just not
part of the comprehensive plan to have that at this time. I think if everybody was in agreement,
neighbors on all sides, if that entire stretch were to change, then I could go with it but at this
point I just unfortunately can’t see that with it before it so, I would also be in denial of it.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah, I think one key with this project down there is access, and to take this lot and
put access into Powers Boulevard forces the properties on either side to either okay you need to
match what I’m doing in my road or, they’re going to come to us and say, now how do we get
out of here and we want to do something different or we don’t want to put a lot over there, so I
think it kind of ties together again that you need to get, you need to get everybody together down
there to get, you know maybe the access ends up all the way over here on Oakside Circle for the
entire development, I don’t know but it definitely would raise issues for the remaining property
owners on how do they get in and out of there if they want to subdivide. That’s it.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: No further comments.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
8
McDonald: I guess the only comments I would have is that these are estate lots and I would say
that they are estate lots by choice, and that’s the biggest obstacle I see to all of this is that, you
know we have heard from all the neighbors before. I was here a year ago and it’s the same
letters that are coming in. By choice they wish to remain as an estate lot and at this point it’s the
same problems. We would be creating an island of different zoning. We would probably create
problems as far as traffic as has been brought up. Access on and off of Powers Boulevard. What
happens when the rest of the lots, if they decide to do something, that this really should be more
of a coordinated approach to doing things. Make it easier for the city as far as the safety of the
citizens within Powers Boulevard. So I would say because of that I would also probably have a
problem of voting on this and again, to me it’s still premature. Nothing has really changed since
last year. Until the neighbors themselves begin to look at requesting changes of this so that again
this could be done in a coordinated effort, I would say is premature. With that, I would ask if
there are a motion.
Larson: The Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from
Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the
findings of fact. B. That the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2,
Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks
based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And C. The
Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating
five lots with a variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning
of the property.
McDonald: Can I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
McDonald: So seconded.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for
Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact; that the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single
Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan designation of the property; and that the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a
variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the
property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
McDonald: And I believe with that the public hearings for tonight are completed. We will now
move on to approval of the minutes from last week.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2006 as presented.
McDonald: At this point we move on to the presentations. We’ll turn it back to city staff.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006
9
Aanenson: Otherwise you can, Chair if you’d like to adjourn the meeting and we’ll just go into
open discussion.
Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: March 13, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bid for the
2006 Sealcoat Project No. 06-02
BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2004, staff discussed with the Council the importance of regular maintenance of
street infrastructure including an annual street sealcoating program.
On January 23, 2006, Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications.
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the pavement management program, staff has reviewed the city street
network and is recommending the streets shown on the attached maps to be sealcoated in
2006.
The estimated cost for this project is $280,835. The cost includes traffic control and
pavement striping to match existing conditions.
The project's proposed schedule is as follows:
Construction Start July 3, 2006
Construction Completion August 18, 2006
Funding for this project has been budgeted in the CIP (Pavement Management - ST018).
Construction documents are available in the Engineering Department.
RECOMMENDATION
At this time, staff is recommending Council approve plans and specifications and authorize
advertising for bid for the 2006 Sealcoat Project.
Attachments
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.....................................................................................SP-10
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
ii
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions..............................................................................................GC-9
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-10
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated March 13, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, a limited
liability company (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
Liberty on Bluff Creek (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the
attached Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved March 13, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated February 20, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Engineering.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated February 20, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Engineering.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated February 20, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering.
SP-2
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by
November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City
Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the
Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $2,191,753.72. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Sanitary Sewer $ 131,574.60
Watermain $ 139,216.50
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 289,794.50
Streets $ 716,644.60
Sub-total, Construction Costs $1,277,230.20
Street lights $ 600.00
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction cost) $ 89,406.11
Landscaping (2% of construction cost) $ 25,544.60
Special Assessments (to be re-assessed to the lots and outlots in the final plat) $ 599,722.47
Sub-total, Other Costs $715,273.18
TOTAL COSTS $1,992,503.38
SP-3
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
Kevin Clark, Vice President Land Development
K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota
7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 952-944-3455
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES
A $2,191,753.72 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the $780,400.60
cash fee and the fully-executed development contract must be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-
construction meeting. The cash fee due with the final plat was calculated as follows:
1. Administration fee: 3% of $500,000 + 2% of $777,230.20 (public improvement costs)
= $30,544.60
2. Attorney fee: $450.00
3. Recording fee: $46.00 (development contract) + $46.00 (plat) = $92.00
4. GIS fee: $25 (plat) + [$10/unit x 32 units] = $345.00
5. SWMP fee: $56,420.00
6. Park Dedication Fee: 168 units x $3,800.00/unit = $638,400.00
7. Street Light Operating Fee (one year): $300.00/light x 2 lights = $600.00
SP-4
8. Assessment for the 2005 MUSA AUAR: $22,709.00. This assessment is based on
the gross acreage of the development being 15.5% of the AUAR area, plus
wetland delineation and cultural resources inventory.
9. Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone: 33.68 acres (gross area) – 7.292 acres
(ROW) – 7.319 acres (BCOD) – 1.082 acres (ponds) – 1.047 acres (wetlands) –
4.09 acres (Outlot B, to be deeded to the City) x $2,400.00/acres = $30,840.00
The sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges must be paid with the building permit. The 2006
trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and
water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council
and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
B. The developer shall submit a separate letter of credit in the amount of $66,904.00 for site
restoration of the proposed grading operations associated with the Liberty at Bluff Creek development
before grading can commence.
C. An additional letter of credit for $31,304.90 must be submitted for the wetland mitigation.
This security must be for a five-year period and is based on 110% of the cost of wetland creation,
including seeding and grading.
D. The developer shall pay all invoices for furnishing and installing street name and traffic
control signs.
E. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including, but not
limited to the MPCA (sanitary sewer and NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), MnDOT,
Watershed District, MDH, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering). The
developer must comply with the conditions of approval from any and all agencies.
F. A preconstruction meeting must be held before grading, tree removal and/or utility
installation can commence. The executed development contract, and all securities and fees must
be submitted before a preconstruction meeting is scheduled.
G. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant’s engineer shall work with
City staff to ensure that the construction plans meet City standards.
H. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
I. Any grading on privately-owned property will require a temporary easement.
J. Before site grading commences, the three existing buildings on the property must be
razed. The developer must obtain a permit from Carver County to use the existing driveway at
Audubon Road as a construction access to the site. This access must be removed when one of the
SP-5
following conditions is met: utility work for Liberty on Bluff Creek is Complete; upon installation
of the wear course of the 2005 MUSA east-west collector; or at the direction of Carver County
or the City.
K. On-street parking may be used to satisfy the parking requirement with the following
stipulations: on-street parking is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 between the hours
of 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with Section 12-16 of the City Code: Winter Parking
Regulations; and credit for on-street parking is not allowed along the curve of the public streets.
L. Building Department conditions:
1. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota and require a building permit.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits
can be issued.
3. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the final grading plan.
4. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a
percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is
needed to determine these requirements.
5. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection
system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the
Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely
clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the
developer meet with the Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what
ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project.
6. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
7. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as
determined by the Building Official.
M. Fire Marshal conditions:
1. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
2. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during
SP-6
the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are
provided.
3. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersection when construction of
the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
4. “No parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of signs to be installed.
5. The driveway and parking lot to the temporary sales center must be designed to
support a fire truck and must be maintained year-round.
6. The driveway to the temporary sales center must be minimum 20 feet wide.
7. A scale drawing of the temporary sales center and parking area must be submitted and
include the following:
i. Parking lot dimensions and turning radius.
ii. Location of proposed structures to be built.
iii. Locations of public and private fire hydrants to be installed.
iv. Sidewalks and walkways.
N. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
1. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
2. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
SP-7
3. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the approved Wetland
Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420).
4. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native
species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans
shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant
shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20
to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around
Basin C. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with
the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under
the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
6. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The
wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans.
7. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland
creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the
replacement wetland are met, as stated in Paragraph C of this agreement. The letter of
credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval.
The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and
seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit.
8. Clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of
the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them.
9. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from
the primary corridor.
10. The developer shall determine the base flood elevation (100-year) to ensure that the
structures will meet all floodplain elevation requirements.
11. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm
water infrastructure.
12. A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be in place before
applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
SP-8
13. Minimization of the amount of exposed soils on the site is needed; phasing of the
development shall limit the disturbed areas open.
14. All emergency overflows need temporary and permanent stabilization and shall be
shown in a detail or on the SWPPP. Energy dissipation (riprap and geotextile fabric)
shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of flared end sections and outlet
structures.
15. Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed and could be located in the proposed
permanent storm water pond locations. If Pond A does not get excavated prior to
disturbing the contributing area; a temporary basin shall be constructed approximately
in the areas of Street D and Lot 5, Block 3. Temporary basins shall be labeled on the
SWPPP. A detail shall be provided for the temporary outlet structures for the
temporary basins. Clay berms shall be used to temporarily divert runoff from the
construction site to the temporary basins prior to discharge. Additionally the clay
diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the
development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them.
16. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams,
creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the
remaining areas. The inlet control (for area inlets, not curbside) detail shall be mono-
mono heavy duty machine sliced silt fence with 4 foot maximum spacing for metal T-
posts. A rock berm placed around the silt fence shall be at least 2 feet wide and 1 foot
high of 1½ -inch clear rock. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be installed in all inlets
through out the project within 24 hours of inlet installation. Street cleaning of soil
tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-
needed.
O. Environmental Resources Conditions:
1. Burning permits will not be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be
chipped or removed from the site.
2. Prior to grading tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading
limits around all trees proposed to be preserved.
3. Any trees removed due to grading or construction activities that were proposed to be
preserved must be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
P. Building permits may be issued for Lots 1-6, 7, 12 and 13, Block 2 before streets and
utilities are installed subject to the following conditions:
1. Once combustible construction begins on these units, each dwelling unit must have a
minimum 10-pound fire extinguisher mounted adjacent to the front door.
SP-9
2. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued until these units are connected to public
sanitary sewer and watermain that has been inspected and approved by the City.
Q. The signature sheet on the final plat must be replace all references to Chaska, MN with
Chanhassen, MN.
R. Provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site
for final plat approval.
S. The lateral sanitary sewer between Lots 1 and 19, Block 1 shall extend 20 feet east of the
private drive.
T. The developer shall build according to the PUD Standards and the Exterior Color and
Materials Booklet date December 2005.
U. Upon approval of final plat only the grading may proceed until Phase II of the 2005
MUSA Utility Project has been awarded.
V. The developer’s engineer must work with Peterson’s Bluff’s engineer to ensure that the
proposed grading on each property matches at the property line and to eliminate and/or decrease
the height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible.
W. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
X. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings must be at least three feet above the HWL of
the adjacent ponds.
Y. The last public storm water structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump.
Z. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the final grading plan.
AA. Blanket drainage and utility easements are required over all common lots; however, the
following storm sewer segments shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association:
1. Northeast and west of Lot 5, Block 1.
2. Within the private cul-de-sac to Lots 1-4, Block 3.
3. The connection between the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 1 and
the public lateral within Street A.
BB. Upon project completion, the developer must submit inspection/soil reports certifying that
the private streets were built to a 7-ton design.
SP-10
CC. The benchmark used to complete the site survey must be shown on the grading plan.
DD. A trail connection from the development to the park on the Pioneer Pass Subdivision
needs to be shown and built.
EE. Bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet
above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from
the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located
within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
FF. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from the primary
corridor.
GG. Dedication of Outlot B shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
HH. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
II. “The City will construct Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements to serve the Plat, public
improvement project no. 06-05. Property within the plat shall be specially
assessed $1,581,748.01 for the project. The assessment shall be paid over a 7 year period
without deferment, together with interest at a rate of 6.5 % per year. The assessment shall
be deemed adopted on the date this agreement is approved by the city council. The Developer
and fee owner waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the installation of
the public improvement and the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing
requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property; and
further waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. § 429.081.”
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-11
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, LLC:
BY:
Arthur Plante, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2006, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2006, by Arthur Plante, President of K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, a Limited Liability
Company, on behalf of the company.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section
22; thence South 88 degrees, 08 minutes 10 seconds East, assumed bearing, 462.00 feet along the
south line of Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to the point of beginning of the tract to be
described, thence continuing South 88 degrees 08 minutes 10 seconds East 863.36 feet along said
south line to the southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; then North 01
degree 06 minutes 07 seconds East 1310.74 feet along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter to the northeast corner thereof, thence North 88 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds
West 66.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South
37 degrees 51 minutes 31 seconds West 157.08 feet; thence South 72 degrees 21 minutes 31 seconds
West 287.10 feet; thence South 35 degrees 51 minutes 31 seconds West 125.40 feet; thence South 16
degrees 51 minutes 31 seconds West 244.20 feet; thence North 80 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds
West 93.91 feet to a point on the west line of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter; thence South 01 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds West 491.28 feet along said west line; thence
South 38 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West 333.62 feet to the point of beginning.
AND
The West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Minnesota;
EXCEPT the following described parcel: Beginning at the southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of said Section 27; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes 05 seconds West, assumed
bearing, 528.00 feet along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North
89 degrees 12 minutes 00 seconds West 617.10 feet; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes 05 seconds East
528.00 feet to a point on the south line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South
89 degrees 12 minutes 00 seconds East 617.10 feet along said south line to the point of beginning.
ALSO EXCEPT that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27 described as
commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 00
degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing, 531.90 feet along the west line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing
North 00 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds West 231.70 feet along said west line; thence north 89 degrees 27
minutes 45 seconds East 470.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds East 231.70 feet;
thence South 89 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds West 470.00 feet to the point of beginning.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
GC-2
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
GC-3
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
GC-4
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
GC-5
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than
$500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between
$500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for
the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over
$500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over
$1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for
the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of
construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
GC-6
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
GC-7
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
GC-8
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and
construction must cease
for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
GC-9
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
GC-10
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
Rev. 12/27/05
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: March 13, 2006
SUBJ: Public Hearing for the 2005 MUSA Expansion, Bid Package #2
(Bluff Creek Boulevard) - City Project No. 06-05
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2006, the City Council received the feasibility study and report
for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements and called a public hearing for
March 13, 2006. The Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements include street,
utility, and storm drainage improvements in the 2005 MUSA area (see attached
Project Location Map).
The Chanhassen City Council previously received the feasibility study and
report for the 2005 MUSA Expansion Improvements, City Project 04-05. The
project includes various public roadway, watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage improvements. Over the past year and a half, City staff and our
engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, have been working to
implement the various public infrastructure improvements.
For the purposes of final design and construction, the 2005 MUSA
improvements have been divided into three separate phases or bid packages.
The first phase includes infrastructure directly related to the TH 312/212
improvements and will be constructed as a part of the MnDOT design-build
contract for TH 312/212. The second phase includes trunk watermain and
sanitary sewer construction, as well as, a precast concrete arch/bridge
construction. The third phase includes the remaining trunk watermain and
sanitary sewer improvements, as well as, the construction of the East-West
Collector Roadway (Bluff Creek Boulevard) and associated storm drainage
improvements.
This feasibility study and report addresses the third phase of improvements for
the 2005 MUSA. The executive summary from the feasibility report is attached
detailing the improvements included as a part of the project. The Council has
previously received complete copies of the feasibility study and report.
Todd Gerhardt
March 13, 2006
Page 2
FUNDING
A portion of the project costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting
property owners in the project area. A copy of the assessment roll for the
project is attached detailing the estimated assessments to the individual property
owners. All of the property owners proposed to be assessed for the
improvements have received notice of the public hearing and a notice of public
hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 2 and March 9,
2006. Assessments are proposed at 6.5% interest over 7 years.
Staff is recommending the following assessment procedures:
· All assessments be made pending at this time.
· Adoption of the final assessment roll and hold assessment hearing in
November 2006. The hearing date is proposed to change from the
recommendation in the feasibility study.
· The Dorsey & Dorsey property is currently in an agricultural preserve
district and cannot be assessed for the improvements until the agricultural
preserve district designation is removed. It is proposed that this property
pay water and sanitary sewer connection fees at the time of development
based on its benefit from the improvements.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the City Council conduct a public hearing for the Bluff Creek
Boulevard Improvements, City Project No. 06-05, and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the
improvements. Approval of this item requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council.
Attachment: 1. Project Location Map
2. Feasibility Study Executive Summary
3. Preliminary Assessment Roll
4. Resolution
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn
g:\eng\public\06-05 2005 musa phase ii\ph bluff creek blvd background 031306.doc